Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Censorship of censorship debate

I've removed the images from the censorship debate for the following reasons:

• Nobody can argue that some people find them offensive
• The inclusion of these images may discourage people offended by them from contributing to the discussion, thus biasing the debate
• They are in a location where you would not expect to see them (they are outside of, for example, the penis article)

Yes it's a little controversial and I am not saying which is my personal point of view on the matter, but I think it is necessary. violet/riga (t) 23:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I support your removal of the images. The point has been made. The discussion does not need to have the images inline.-gadfium 23:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it unacceptable to remove the images. The matter is not decided yet, and it is inappropriate to remove these things, especially as they are a matter of public record as part of a policy discussion here. I am restoring the images. --Improv 00:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The images were still left as links, anyone wanting to see them could do so easily. There is a principle here that images should not be shown in a context in which they are not expected. Some Wikipedians may have to avoid this page if they are at work, or in a public library, where the subject matter may be acceptable (or not sufficiently obvious to draw attention from others) but the images would definately not be. Personally, I edit Wikipedia at work while waiting for a compile etc, but I stay well clear of articles with images which might breach corporate policy while at work. A policy discussion page ought to be safe. Note that my general attitude to the images themselves is that they should be on pages where they are relevant.-gadfium 00:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is also the principle here that policy discussion pages should not have parts of them removed that are relevant to the discussion. Policy discussion pages should not have relevant (that is, part of relevant discussion) content censored, and I feel this is a stronger obligation than them being work-safe. --Improv 01:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing the pictures from the Village Pump. Another point is that the Pump is fairly general. The photos are not certainly not relevant to all the other topics on the Pump at any given time.

Also, I disagree that removing the pictures is censorship. It's editing. Maurreen 05:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was going to remove them myself but I couldn't even look at the Pump here at work to do so. Keeping them there was excluding people from the debate. Filiocht 08:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I also support removing the pictures from VP. Work safe, and all that. This whole issue brings to light that Wiki needs some kind of user-selectable content filtering. Also, I question the wisdom of having a naked woman on the woman wikipedia page for similiar reasons (Does your average joe really expect to see a naked woman on that page?). Samboy 15:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, it's just a case of 'we can do it, so we will'. One of these days, one of these images is going to get Wikipedia closed down. Filiocht 15:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ohh yes, I can see the headlines "picture of naked woman in encyclopaedia shock!". Ohh in case you didn't get it that's called sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. Jooler 15:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Improv but I've removed the images (inline) again. The images are part of the relevant discussion but are still linked. I could have my entire career destroyed by looking at those images at work and it is very easy for people to come across them without expecting them. The VP is not an appropriate place for them. This way people can still look at the images at their discretion rather than having them forced on them. violet/riga (t) 13:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a motion I, for one, fully support. Even though my stand on the matter itself is that removing a picture of a penis from the penis page would be ridiculous, and that "full frontal nudity" is not a horrible disgrace to an encyclopedia, and so on - these pictures do belong on WP, in their respective articles. The VP is not one such article.--TVPR 20:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Said pictures belong on the Wikipedia, where appropriate, but displaying them here adds nothing to the discussion and excludes legitimate contribution. I ardently, vehemently oppose censorship for the sake of certain people's puritanical sensibilities, but Improv seems to be going out of his way to offend them. ADH (t&m) 22:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I AM ON A 21" MONITOR IN MY COLLEGE LIBRARY. DO NOT PUT THE IMAGES BACK. --Alterego 01:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Replacing the images with links to the images doesn't exactly qualify as removal, and yet it protects people who wouldn't expect to stumble on them. This tweak is very appropriate. --PeteXor 02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Save the archives!

I am amazed to find that archives are deleted after 7 days! It is a great and unecesssary loss of information (I was looking for some older proposals, now it will take me much more time). Although, it is a loss of a significant part of Wikipedia history, and a useful resource to academic researchers of this topic. I strongly move to restore all old content and instead preserve it through normal archive structures, like the content elsewhere (article talk pages, FA/PR/AfD nominations, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is not paper. Archiving, while not strictly necessary because of the revision history, can be very convenient in some cases. Superm401 | Talk 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why will they be permanently removed, rather than permanently archived? Derex 21:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree that it's worth archiving; we already archive WP:AN and WP:AN/I which are similarly active but contain much less discussion that's likely to be useful in the future. I'm not sure that we need to dig up all the old material, but it would be worth maintaining permanent archives from now on. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...there's actually nothing stopping people archiving the discussions permanently. You simply move them from the village pump archive to somewhere you wish them archived. If that's Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) archive (04-12-2005) then feel free. If it is to a relevant talk page, feel free. Now that a bot is doing the archiving, it might be worth organising something, although I am not in favour of it personally, I think it would be unwieldy and create yet another huge mass of redundant pages. But then I find everything is readily accessible within the page history. Hiding talk 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as the content is available in the history, let's not fork redundant versions of it - some confused user might accidentally begin a new discussion on it later, leading to slightly different versions of it. I believe in preserving every byte of this content, but no need for it to be in the current-version articles all the time. The way I see it, the purpose of the archives is to make reading recent discussions which are still relevant more convenient, while the purpose of the history in this namespace is to preserve all of our discussions for research (and posterity :-). Deco 08:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that unless I'm missing something big here, the history is not easy to search at all if you don't know what timeframe you are interested in. Archive pages, on the other hand, are easily searched via google, or via the what links here from a relevant article. If it's in the history, it doesn't show up on what links here and AFAIK it doesn't appear on google, so it's a lot less functional. If the archiving is done automatically, all the more reason to make real archives -- the added workload would be minimal. They could be clearly marked as archives, like some other old pages, to prevent the confusion you mention. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I would suggest the first step is probably to talk to Cryptic, it's his bot. When we were talking about setting it up he indicated it was a possibility that the pumps could be archived properly. Like I say, I have no issue with someone doing it, I'm not sure if it is an issue that would require a community decision? Hiding talk 07:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it would involve little more than flipping a switch (figuratively speaking). The same bot already archives WP:AN to numbered subpages. —Cryptic (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's do it, then, unless there's any particularly compelling reason not to. I haven't seen any problems pointed out with the similar archiving on AN. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If the history isn't easy to search, that's a software issue. If you install the latest database dump you can certainly do queries against the history. Maybe someone should set up a website or something as a trial. Deco 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, it would be nice to have a way to search past discussions without downloading 2+ GB worth of database. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What we should be able to do is tag conversations CVS/SVN style and make those searchable. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless Deco still objects, I'm going to start moving forward on this. Since the archives of the split village pump only go back to 15 November 2004 (except for Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive, which goes to 15 October 2004), I'll start by pasting the history into separate archive pages. Since I won't have a whole lot of time on my hands until mid-January, this will probably take a while to finish. Until I'm done with that, the bot will still be using the old archival method. —Cryptic (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object as long as the pages are protected to prevent forking. I think it's a big waste of effort though when this is something that should be solved with a proper software solution for discussions and not ad hoc shuffling of wikitext. Deco 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

24 hour lockdown for main page Featured Articles?

On 03/28/06, Noah's Ark was on the main page as a featured article, and during that period had something like 300 edits. I have no particular knowledge of the subject, so I can't speak with authority about the edits, but it looks like a fair amount of vandalism or at-best inadequately sourced edits occurred. Even what may be valid information can hurt the quality of the writing and the flow of the article. An issue like this can be pretty contentious, and judging by the talk page, a good deal of effort was made by editors with a variety of personal viewpoints to reach a good, balanced presentation of the subject. It seems a shame that someone checking out the article based on curiousity and the main page link ended up visiting a jumble of edits that changed every few minutes, rather than the article that was judged worthy of FA status. I'm pretty new (and haven't set up an account yet, so I'll probably be ignored) but I thought I'd suggest that there be some sort of protection of Featured Articles for the period they are cited on the main page. Anyone who really cared about the subject and had useful information could edit the next day, but this could limit the deluge of 100s of edits in a day. - Bert 171.159.64.10 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the featured article is the first thing many visitors to Wikipedia see, it has long been held that it should offer the wiki experience - i.e. anyone can edit. I fear this falls under the perennial proposals list. --Golbez 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Along with my perennial form reply - user:Raul654/protection Raul654 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured this had probably been discussed before. Any recommendations on how a newbie can figure out that something like this has already been beaten like a dead horse without spending a few hundred hours reading past discussions, and maybe even get to read the relevant debate? -Bert 171.159.64.10 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You can try using the Wikipedia search. If that doesn't work, I suggest using Google to search Wikipedia. Legitimate questions are not ignored, no matter who they come from. It just depends on whether the people who have time and answers see your post or not. You're pretty likely to get a response on the Village Pump pages, but you might just be talking to yourself on some talk pages. -- Kjkolb 04:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals). It doesn't actually deal with the suggestion to protect or semiprotect the featured article. Perhaps it should include a link to user:Raul654/protection. -gadfium 06:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What should be done is an analysis of 10 or more FAs - see how much they changed from the time they were main pages till the time they were replaced. But even if we find out that there has been little postive change (as my analysis of 3 FAs a few weeks ago has shown), than there is the argument - mentioned above - that protecting them may discourage/confuse potential future editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, No, and No. This has been proposed before, and thoroughly refuted and opposed. Pre-emptive protection of pages does not happen at Wikipedia. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't we have a separate copy of a featured page that can be edited, and preserve the pre-feature copy elsewhere? Then after the editing frenzy has died down, an experienced editor can move the good edits into the preserved copy. I realise this is extra work for someone. Runcorn 09:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I like editing the featured article. There are often improvements possible. Most of the vandalism is from anonymous IPs and new users. I would like a more general anti-vandal measure: you can ban anyone once for a day with less than 5% of your number of edits. They would soon lose interest. (First edit on my phone. Can't seen do tildes and this edit may have unpredictable results) Stephen B Streater

Linking to websites that host copyvios

What is the policy for linking to sites that host copyvio materials for the purpose of providing references? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The policy is not to do it. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

duplication of categories

What does the community think about what one editor has done to the Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. This category had been organized (a lot by me) into a relatively small number of major sub-categories, such as Category:European Americans. Now this editor has added all the sub-categories of the major categories directly into the American people... category. This is based on a personal theory of this one user; I have not seen this elsewhere in Wikipedia. Thanks Hmains 04:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are pros and cons; on the one hand, it's good not to have to wade through hierarchies of categories, on the other hand, over 70 sub-categories is unwieldy. On balancve, I'm against it, but not very strongly. Runcorn 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

vandalism by "clean up"

Vandalism by "clean up" is wrong. I had a good edit. This was my edit: [1]. I worked hard on that edit. It seems EurekaLott ( 07:08, June 5, 2006) didn't even read it. The left-hand tab says project. EurekaLott's so-called "clean up" of 07:08, June 5, 2006 was therefore wrong. It seems to have been automated, without any thought.--Chuck Marean 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• This comment is in the wrong place. Please nobody discuss here, and I'll copy it to Talk:Web directory. AndyJones 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Page statistics

Can't we have same way of displaying a page view counter, I have no idea whether certain pages are being seen by one person a week, or a thousand day. A simple page counter would do the trick, though being able to link to a more sophisticated statistics package would let us see from which pages people come from, and go to, and provide averages, referrals etc. --Iantresman 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not difficult in principle, but with the traffic Wikipedia gets, it might impose a significant extra burden on the servers. --Runcorn 21:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on topics of interest...and several of us repetitiously going to the page to check the counter might provide false results. Michael 07:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the possibility for false results exist but I do think there is a lot of value in a page counter--especially in AfD debates. Agne 15:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Technical FAQ#Can I add a page hit counter to a Wikipedia page?. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... Michael 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

International versions

I have noticed that the international versions of Wikipedia articles are not just translations, but often completely different articles with different information. Is NPOV defendable when local Wikipedia version are significantly different? Obviously the FDL allows different versions, but I think it would be good if everything under the Wikipedia flag represented a single collection of facts, and not local interpretations. (I'm not sure if this belong to policy, so please redirect me to the appropriate discussion page if not) Robert John Kaper 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• This should be on the main page. It'll be moved. Discuss it there. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias re: Talmud

I have sent you this link http://www.daatemet.org/daathalacha/en_gentiles.html (written by the Jews in Jerusalem) about the fact how the Gentils (non-Jews) are seen in Halacha (Jewish religious Law). Those writings may resolve some questions that were open at the discussion page of "The Protocols of Zion Sage" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_Zion_Sages I was very surprised to discover that my messages were refused (twice) and that the discussion couldn't take place. After that, I have discovered that all References and Futher Readings were written by the peole who have uninamously the same opinion. I wanted to write to Mediation Help, but, I have discovered that this kind of "Help" is based on cabala (Jewish way of thinking). Is it possible that Wikipedia can not allow any discussion that bring new opinions and new facts? Who cares about the impartiality by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.71.136 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 July 2006

"Those who attack the Talmud frequently cite ancient rabbinic sources without noting subsequent developments in Jewish thought, and without making a good-faith effort to consult with contemporary Jewish authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Jewish thought and practice." - this is citation of your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud . So, you can use this site: http://www.daatemet.org/daathalacha/en_gentiles.html It was written by the Jews in Jerusalem who have learned over years the Talmud and who denounce clearly the monstrosity of contemporary rabbinical teachings (teachings that remained the same over last 1800 years = since Ha Nasi). Strange that Wikipedia can not avoid the lies?! Who are those people who write your articels without any desire to represent the truth? Why do you allow it! Is there any control of the facts? Shoud you not avoid those who are implicated emotionaly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.130.88 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 1 August 2006

Perhaps you should discuss this on the Talk page. I am not entirely sure how the phrase you quote can be so inciteful, but at the appropriate location you should clearly define your concerns and suggest possible avenues for improvement. We have multiple policies relating to issues that you raise, such as WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:SOURCE, and perhaps even WP:ATTACK. However, as you are can clearly become emotionally charged over this topic, I highly recommend you heed your own suggestions and leave editing to those whom have no opinions whatsoever about religion other than a fascination and knowledge of it extensive enough to write encyclopedic entries on the subject. Oh, and bear in mind WP:CIVIL. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when such a person is born. In the meanwhile, the opinionated and merely human people will have to try and stay cool as best they can. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Isn't it about time to archive some of the Pump when it's 377+KB!? I'm on a decently fast connection, but it's still a pain when an edit conflict pops up and my browser has to upload the entire page. -newkai | talk | contribs 10:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is done automatically by a bot after 7 days. —Centrx→talk • 20:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is now. There was a period when we were between bots and the only person archiving was me, and I then took a wikibreak. The query was during this period. People shouldn't always assume the bot will just get it. For a long timne the pump was archived manually, bots to archive are relatively new, and if a bot fails, people should be aware that it's okay to archive if you follow the instructions on the pump pages. Hiding Talk 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that too, and I'm glad someone beat me to the question first. However, I have a related question. What if you want your topic to still be active, and archive times comes around? I'm just asking out of curiosity, because though I had a topic prior to the archive time, it was resolved and quite frankly I wanted it to go away. Kevin 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Go and GO direct to different places

There seems to be an unresolved dispute centering on where the search GO and Go should refer straight to the board game go or a disambugation page with various alternatives. The dispute has resulted in multiple pages ie GO and Go of disabugation. This came to my attention because last time I searched for Go it went straight to the board game with a link to disambugaiton at the top. Presently it goes to the disabugation page. It seems the discussion has been held seperatly on the disambugation page and the board game without discussion here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.21.78 (talk • contribs) . 03:08, September 23, 2006

Go points to a disambiguation page, and the discussion page seems months old. Am I missing something? Fagstein 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Observe the capitalization: Go and GO. I'm not sure what to make of it. older ≠ wiser 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge them both into Go, per some guideline or other that i know exists somewhere! Thanks/wangi 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's OK as is. Both pages link to each other at the bottom. —Mets501 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's okay as long as editors realize there are two related pages and the distinction between them is clear... Often what ends up happening though is that people start adding a lot of the lowercase entries to the uppercase one, and visa versa, and it starts to become pointless to keep them separate. --Interiot 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

One is for usage of the word "Go" ; the other is for the acronym "G" and "O", as joined into one lovely combination of letters. I'm fine with both: they link to each other. Granted, if they were merged, you wouldn't hear any sort of outcry from me; but it may be worth maintaining the distinction of acronym vs. word, for purposes of maintaining organisation. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what, if anything, this has to do with the Village pump (policy) page? - Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest moving it, but then I noticed that none of the other sections here from this year were on topic either, so I figured it wouldn't hurt... --Interiot 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Persecution bot

Can someone restrain a free-running copyright witchhunt bot?

User:OrphanBot has been adding brainless copyright violation allegations to many of my non-infringing images. Can someone stop it?

The subject image.

The elements in that image.

An "image" like this can never be copyrighted:

1. "LEARN CHINESE" - Not copyrightable.
2. "Pot Sticker" - "Potsticker" - Not copyrightable.
3. "Guo-tie" - Chinese "鍋貼" or "Potsticker" - Not copyrightable.
4. "罐屠夫" - "Canned Butcher"; possibly a computer glitch - Not copyrightable.
5. A Blue rectangle - Not copyrightable.
6. "You maintain ..." - Possibly copyrightable but practically not copyrightable.
7. "Lucky Numbers ..." - Computer generated numbers; not copyrightable.

It's a waste of time to argue with a brainless bot. Can someone restrain it? -- Toytoy 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what OrphanBot adds is a poliet remainder for images which don't specify a source/creator. If the image is not copyrighted, then you need to specify as being so (so for example, marking an image as being your own creation.) Otherwise, other people don't know where it's from. In this day and age, anything is possible for copyright =). If you think an image you've uploaded is not copyrightable, then you need to select the correct license when you are uploading. (and i also believe the talk page for village pump policy isn't the best place to be asking this. You could have tried OrphanBot's talk page, or the talk page of whoever runs Orphanbot.) --`/aksha 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, even if the individual components of the sticker are not under copyright, the overall arrangement and layout may well be. Consider some of the pieces of Andy Warhol. To make sure that an image is ok, we need the uploader to specify the copyright status. --Stephan Schulz 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking For Something To Talk About

Do any policies actually get decided here? Just H 01:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Policies get discussed here. Mostly, people get enlightened as to why what they are suggesting isn't workable and/or likely to be implemented. Policies and guidelines get implemented after being written out on a separate project page (wikipedia namespace) and discussed on the talk page for that project page (and there is more-or-less consensus that the new policy/guideline is a good idea).

So: this village pump page is a good starting place when someone has an idea and wants to discuss it, or someone is working on a policy/guideline and wants to publicize that. John Broughton | Talk 15:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. Is there any way to make something into a policy without just having people assume it is already or just having Jimbo say it is? Just H 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to create policy, it should prove helpful. —bbatsell ¿? 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection recommended for this page

I have to suggest semi-protecting this article. We have a open-proxy or sock puppet user that is vandalizing this article and other one (this message is posted there as well). The edits include ones like 02:57, January 5, 2007 (Good-bye clowns: U.S Feds stop propagandizing on Wikipedia. You're not wanted here. half trillion $ annual budget can't defend us from 19 guys with box-cutters 'cause you waste too much time here). These posts are always identical. I suspect it may be a bot that moves onto a new IP everytime it is blocked. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's an open proxy, it should be blocked. Protecting the Village Pump, one of our shopfronts, would be a serious blow to the philosophy that anon IPs can edit all but a few special case articles.--Runcorn 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting it only because this article was a specific target. Once the vandal has given up, the protection would be dropped. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep reverting, and if necessary block the vandal for vandalism.--Runcorn 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin. So blocking the user takes longer for me. I have to list the user on the vandal intervention page. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

projects

What WP policies and guidelines are violated by the following assertions from an editor involved with a project:

Please stop reworking Kentucky categories. No notice was given to WikiProject Kentucky. The way they are being changed is unacceptable. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to clear any changes with WikiProject Kentucky. If you don't, I'm reverting every change you make. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hmains 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an editing dispute. And it's clear I'm talking about courtesy there. I was upset because changes were made behind our backs. That's all it is. On top of this, why isn't this on the pump page rather than here in pump talk? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that an editor could go behind the back of a project. Traditionally, one cites which policy has been broken in an edit dispute, or which guideline has been ignored,

perfectblue 18:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At some point, we're going to have to wonder: What good are state-level WikiProjects if their members cannot oversee their own state-level category hierarchies? I think it stands to reason that this oversight is natural and expected. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved with your individual issue as I know nothing about it, but I think that you might have gotten the nature of a project a little bit off center.

Projects are groups of like minded people working together for a common goal, but are not official bodies. Members can discuss an issue, reach a consensus amongst themselves, then they can work together to bring about whatever they have discussed. However, projects are not oversight committees, regulators comities or enforcers. If they have a problem with a user acting against the consensus of the project, it should be taken to an admin procedure.

You're free to revert a change that goes against the consensus of your project, but the 3RR rule still applies, and your reverts have no actual authority attached to them without a neutral admin behind them. If edits break general wiki policy though, you are free to use these policies as a limited form of authority to justify a changes.

perfectblue 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a guideline that backs up either Hmains or my approach to categorization. It's a matter of what the general community thinks should be the way state category hierarchies should be arranged, and I don't believe it has been worked out yet. And as far as Kentucky is concerned, our project members weren't even given the chance to come to any consensus, because, again, no courtesy was given. This is one thing about the Wikipedia that has always griped me: lack of courtesy before making major changes. I understand that courtesy isn't required, but saying "thank you" and holding a door open for people behind you isn't required either. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Always nice to see evidence of my third rule in action. Kafziel ^Talk 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not about proving changes to those who think they own pages, but instead notification to people who should know most about the subject so as to determine the best approach. It's about courtesy. What's the matter with discussing major changes before making them? This is how the normal political process works, so why can't that apply here as well? And we're not talking about insignificant article changes, we're talking about upending a lot of state-level category hierarchies. I smell a big diff there.

The bottom line is my own rule: Wikipedia is not immune from the reality-based community, that is, politics. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There's absolutely no reason to suppose that a member of Wikiproject Kentucky is more qualified to edit a Kentucky-related article; I can join Wikiproject Kentucky if I want, and I've never even been there. There's also no reason to ask for permission before editing pages. You and your club do not own any pages - not even the page about Wikiproject Kentucky. No one needs to provide notification or request permission to edit articles here. In fact, you are quite clearly in the wrong for threatening an unfounded revert war, here. Kafziel ^Talk 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject should be notified (as a courtesy) when making a major multi-article change. But it's not required. If you, or the Wikiproject, think something was changed incorrectly, you can start a discussion to achieve consensus on the issue. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Stevietheman's own messages, if quoted correctly and the first to be given, are not exactly courteous - "please discuss proposed major changes at the Project page..." or similar would be better. Johnbod 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Libel

May I ask a question? I should first of all say that i have no intention of doing this, nor have I done it; but is it legally possible to libel someone on wikipedia in a way in which the Courts will determine culpability exists and award damages accordingly?--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the answer is YES. Bluap 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. As I say, it is not a matter of personal concern to me; I was merely academically curious, given the apparently scurilous edits that occasionally fly around the project.--Anthony.bradbury 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're writing it, the world's reading it, it's hard to see how it wouldn't class as libel if it was otherwise classed as defamatory... We'd be okay - it's unlikely a court would find us liable - but the author would certainly have a case to answer. Shimgray | talk | 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. As I say, it is not a personal problem, I was merely curious.--Anthony.bradbury 01:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but the Wikimedia Foundation's legal responsibility is to establishing and follow procedures to quickly deal with any such problems, particularly those that are brought to its attention. That's the reason for WP:OFFICE and for the (relatively) recently implemented WP:BLP, which empowers editors to remove negative unsourced info on living people on sight. And it's why admins are empowered to totally remove old versions of articles that are libelous. And it's why there is a link on the bottom of every page to disclaimers. John Broughton | ♫ 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear if the question is about the editor's liability or Wikipedia's but yes, sure. There is a cluster of related torts involving publishing untrue information that causes harm to the reputation of a person or business so as to cause an economic loss, or causing emotional distress, businesses sabotaging each other, etc. News reporters and papers in the US (but not UK) get more room but I doubt that applies here. Wikipedia itself has more protection and is not automatically responsible for what its users say. The new Wikimedia Foundation general counsel knows this area of law, and no doubt he is giving them good advice on avoiding liability. You might think Wikipedia would push some boundaries but the reality is quite the opposite. Wikipedia's content goal is to develop true, verifiable, non-scandalous information, and to listen to people who think they have been maligned. An article that follows Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability, NPOV, biographies of living people, etc., is very unlikely to be defamatory. Moreover, they don't see fighting for free speech as part of their mission. Under a credible threat they will usually back down rather than risk litigation, even if they think the threat is unfounded. There are other people to defend free speech, and for Wikipedia it is simply not worth squandering the money that supports nearly two million articles, just to defend one. Most but not all of the time, an aggrieved party is more than happy to drop a threat if the other party takes down the offending information or issues a retraction, and that is that. I'm not sure if that's what you're asking but I hope that helps. Wikidemo 09:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pornography

I thought that would attract attention.

A question. I have come across a user, who I would prefer at this time not to name, although I can do so if pressed, who has a significant number of frankly pornographic pictures on his userpage. Pictures are not pedophilic or grossly offensive, but are bondage-related. Is there any Wiki policy on this, specifically, are there any categories of picture which are forbidden on user pages? And if not, should there be? I should say that I am a senior citizen, and a medical practitioner, and well past being personally upset by these things. My question is academic.--Anthony.bradbury 00:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Images that are not licensed under a free license such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons license are not allowed on user pages. Since most (but not all) pornographic images are copyrighted, this means that most pornographic images are not allowed on user pages. If the image is under a free license or is public domain, I don't think there is any policy restricting its use on userpages, assuming it is not blatantly offensive (child porn, bestiality, etc.). Kaldari 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's impossible to claim fair use for pictures on a user page (the "educational or critical" clause will never apply, unless it's a userpage draft of an article that will be moved), so anything that isn't free is removable. ColourBurst 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're thinking of the same user, he's displaying the pictures in the context of free content he's provided for the project. I think that's fair enough. I would personally object if a user was using their main user page simply as a porn gallery. It might well qualify as disruptive under Wikipedia:User page. — Matt Crypto 09:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Several users have galleries of explicit images on their userpages or subpages thereof. These have come up at MfD before and produced a solid no consensus on whether to remove them. I'd recommend not deleting it yourself, since you have no policy backing you (wikipedia is not censored, after all, and rules about needing to contribute to an article don't apply so strictly in userspace) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, I had no intention of deleting them myself.--Anthony.bradbury 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the most popular pages in Wikipedia (that's how a found it, via a list) is a gallery of pictures of nudes, all from Commons (so, copyright is not an issue). I don't know if the user posted all of them to Commons or not (I'd doubt it, given the number on the user page). Relevant policies, other than the ones already mentioned, are Wikipedia:Galleries (proposed) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free web host. It might take Jimbo weighing if things are to change, I'd guess. John Broughton | ♫♫ 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually stumbled on such a userpage (can't remember whitch or how, however) gathering such pictures (some bondage, a few nude people on horses, and so on), "to illustrate how unsensored wikipedia was". While that's all proper and fine, most of the images I looked at were only appeared on this userpage and another one. My question is the following: if they are only used on userpages, can OrphanBot and others find it out? And if not, aren't they still unused images, to be deleted to save a little space? --SidiLemine 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OphanBot is only for the en.wikipedia.org domain, yes? The images (at least the ones I've heard of) are from Commons, available to any language project. But I'm not an expert on OrphanBot. John Broughton | ♫♫ 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been one or two cases where userpage galleries like this - and some of their images - have been deleted on the grounds that we're not a webhost. Shimgray | talk | 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the galleries on Commons has been used the way they are supposed to be used: images from there have been used for appropriate articles. It is very useful to have images on such topics that are known to be PD. Some of them were in fact photographed for the purpose, and donated to the commons. The few with identifiable living people even have model releases. But all this is much more valuable on Commons than on user pages. DGG 04:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does a proposal for an addition to policy go?

I seemed to get a circular loop on the links which point you to where proposals regarding policy go. Can anyone help?Trishm 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand the easiest way is to just create the page, stick {{proposed}} on it, and ask for comments (here or at the community noticeboard, I presume). – Chacor 09:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Though it is to some extent unclear what the community noticeboard is for, it is not for policy proposals and it is not a duplicate of WP:VPP. —Centrx→talk • 23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

High Schools

Moved to Village pump (policy)

Policy regarding "Criticism" subheadings

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Commons media categorisation

Moved to Village pump (policy)

Privacy dicussion

I started a discussion of privacy with respect to biographical information here (on WP:BLPP talk). patsw 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User generated images and WP:OR

I've got a small problem with a user who keeps insisting on deleting 2 user generated images because they think that they violate WP:OR. Their argument is that because the pictures are "artists renderings" based on witness statements they violate WP:OR, my standpoint is that because pictures are of something that doesn't actually exist (Shadow people) there is no way that you can possibly have a real photograph. An outside opinion on this would be useful.

The page in question is.

perfectblue 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is also posted to Wikipedia talk:No original research#WP:OR and images of non-existant things, I responded there. --Minderbinder 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a month later, but I was sort of curious how this issue ended. Jmlk17 07:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to the Three People Who Blanked Parts of the Page

My texts were not vandalism, and the previous poster's text were not vandalism. Thus, any deletion of them not by the original person or without refactoring falls under Vandalism - Blanking. You do not have the right to remove people's text in a talk page unless its your own.

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments "In general, editing others' comments is not allowed." Please keep to what the policy says and follow the appropriate guidelines. It has been demonstrated that the three users, Amarkov, Someguy0830 and Richardshusr edited without having good faith in the previous poster or in myself. SanchiTachi 01:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For someone so adamant about assuming good faith, you sure don't follow the same policy. Assume the assumption of good faith. While I may not assume it of the editor, I assume it of you, even if I believe your opinion to be misguided. Also, it's not vandalism, so get your terms right if you want to make it an issue. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"In general". -Amarkov moo! 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. SanchiTachi, please take a minute to read Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" and then consider stop dragging this out. --Iamunknown 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I tried to edit the Vandalism policy on blanking to cover issues like this (probably), and I can't find a better wording that gets consensus. Can someone help out with that? --Kim Bruning 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean you tried to edit WP:V to point out that such blanking is not categorically vandalism? --Iamunknown 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

*nodnod* --Kim Bruning 01:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (yes)

How did I not assume good faith? You mean by reverting your blanking of the page breaks assume good faith? That is provably incorrect. Also, when you cite a source that says: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline;", you cannot say that I am not following a policy. Now, what the real policy says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." By blanking the page, especially my text that was obviously dealing with policy, then you have broken the blanking rule on WP:Vandalism. Thank you.

And Kim, blanking is obvious. When you delete someone's wholesale sub catagory in a page such as that, you are blanking regardless of the wording. SanchiTachi 01:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I will provide http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=130932050&oldid=130930964 as proof that Someguy0830 feels the need to edit people without letting them to have the chance to edit or correct themselves, and this is a violation of WP:Etiquette. Please don't. It is rude and unnecessary. I am fully capable of fixing my own mistakes. Furthermore, my original response is not to Iamunknown. But someguy has edited it to look as if it was. SanchiTachi 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll note I restored your comment in under a minute, and gave a specific reason for removing it in the first place. Now you're just grabbing at straws. Next time don't copy other comments into yours, or be quicker about correcting your error. As for the indenting, you indented incorrectly and I fixed, as I just did again. Same line isn't a response, it's an addendum. you indent one space for a response. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot expect someone to be able to correct something like that in less than a minute. Wikipedia is not a speed competition. When I posted one response, I had to deal with three editing conflicts in a row. However, you are approaching incivility by deleting people without respect and editing their posts immediately after they make them. That is not your right.

I put forth the following to show that Someguy did not allow me to correct myself, and is unwilling to respect my ability to edit my own work:

1. (cur) (last) 21:31, 14 May 2007 Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) (48,731 bytes) (rv, I'll restore your comment in a minute, after I pick it out of Iamunknowns)
2. (cur) (last) 21:30, 14 May 2007 SanchiTachi (Talk | contribs) (49,820 bytes) (→Note to the Three People Who Vandalized the Page)"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_%28policy%29&curid=1379435&action=history

Please don't claim what I did or not do correctly. My indentations are in reply to my post in order to deal with three different people's comments as one. It is furthermore not your right to determine if my indentations are right. SanchiTachi 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. And you wonder where good faith goes. I don't feel like encouraging your witchhunt. Three people have reverted you on the issue at hand. I'm satisfied. Complain about my methods all you like, but they are only refactoring, which is perfectly acceptable. I may not have been too civil about it, but my patience in this matter is wearing thin. Let it go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You did not know who I was replying to, thus, you cannot do such a thing. I formated it consciously. Furthermore, you did not have the right to edit my comments, only your own, especially when you didn't give me the chance. The link you cited does not say users have the right to edit other people's comments in order to put in what they think the other user was intended to format.

The Broken Etiquette"Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary." SanchiTachi 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Get back to the issue at hand or let it go. This will do nothing to make your point valid. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I must point out again that the above user, Someguy, editing my post once again. I believe it has something to do with this User_talk:SanchiTachi#Talk_pages: " I honestly no longer care what your opinion is" and "You're just harping on me because you can't win." I interpret this to mean that he believes that Wikipedia is about "winning" and that he has the right to violate WP:Etiquette's "don't edit other's comments" policy because any complaint against it is an attempt to "win" something. I believe that the above user does not have respect for other people's posts and does not try to help other people, but instead try to dominate each other by either deleting their posts or constantly editing what they say to show how he is better than them. SanchiTachi 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed a quote mark that was messing up your numbered list. Don't misrepresent my actions. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed something that I was perfectly capable of removing. The fact that you did it over three times so far in less than 24 hour period reinforces my comments above. SanchiTachi 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

note that "quotation" was followed by an ending quotation. The removal of the first quotation makes the second quotation mark seem out of place. Thus, once again, he edited something without understanding why it was there to begin with. Furthermore, it wasn't my numbering system, but wikipedia, which I quoted. SanchiTachi 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi, it seems you're treating it as some sort of competition as well. You wrote, "Someguy0830 feels the need to edit people without letting them to have the chance to edit or correct themselves". If the correction is minor formatting and makes zero change to the actual content, then it can be done by anyone and the author shouldn't care whether they are beaten to it. Indenting does make the thread easier to read. He neglected the ending quotation, sure, but that is a minor cost for properly aligning the numbers in the list. Personally I would have left it, but if someone bothers to take the time to make it look neat, then let them be. It looks like Someguy0830 is letting this get to him as well, without thoroughly justifying his actions, and should probably back off. –Pomte 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I am, likely because my explanations are falling on deaf ears. I'm tired of this anyway, so I'll let it go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I ask this question for Pomte: So if I were to edit you in less than a minute after you post to rearrange your formating, to say "oh no, you ment to respond to this person" or "you didn't mean to put that quote there" you think it would fall under WP:Etiquette? Because thats exactly what has happened. The correction is not minor and doesn't belong. Correcting other people without letting them even have a chance to correct themselves is a serious problem. It is not your duty to make sure that everyone's post is grammatically correct or formatted exactly as you think it should be. The numbers aren't proper! The formating doesn't belong there at all. If you look at the link, the numbers are far different. It is extremely rude to edit other people's posts in that way. There is no justification for it, and I believe you should strike your post for even mentioning that it could be justified, Pomte. What I quoted from Etiquette is the proper policy, and it doesn't say that you have the right to change what other people say, and thinking that you know how it should be formatted better than they do is exactly that. I find your post disturbing and borderline promoting people going around and editing what others say. Its highly rude to touch what other people say in such a way as that. SanchiTachi 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone corrected a superficial mistake with my comment, and interpreted my intention correctly, then I'd thank them in the next edit summary or something. If they interpreted me wrongly, I'd revert and make my intentions more explicit. Problem over.

You imply that you needed to be corrected since you express a need for the chance to correct yourself. So where is the harm in someone else correcting it? If they do it wrong, then fix it and move on. If the numbers aren't proper, get rid of them. The # signs got there because you copy and pasted the bullets from the history page. Just because you have a chance to remove it yourself, it doesn't mean you will. They can assume that you've neglected an honest mistake. If you get indented, it can mean you didn't heed point 3 of Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages. I can say Someguy0830 was completely wrong about your intentions with the #, but so what? It was an innocent good faith edit as there was an actual problem with the display of your quote. I will look down upon Someguy0830 if he makes another one of these edits, which would be a WP:POINT violation, but it appears he's detached himself from this debate.

No one has changed your comments in any significant way that I have found. I'd have a problem with grammatical changes, but I don't see any here. There is a bot in place for picking up after users. Do you have an issue with HagermanBot as well? –Pomte 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I implied only the need to be edited in one situation, which I was edited by him in less than a minute after I posted, which kept me from being able to put in the correction myself (I went to post, it had the edit conflict). However, he also changed my tabbing, which I reverted only to get more flack and claims that I was wrong about who I intended to reply to. Where is the harm? The harm is stalking. By editing someone else's post without their permission, you are violating their comment space. If you cannot understand that, I believe you should reread what I posted on your User Talk page. There are no "good faith edits" of other people. There are only edits of other people, and all edits of other people aren't good. If I am wrong, post it in my talk page. Allow me to correct myself. It is not your right to correct me. Its called respect, and its one of the main tennants of WikiEtiquette. And yes, I do have a problem with Hagerman because it immediately goes into effect instead of letting people realize their error and then fixing it immediately themselves. SanchiTachi 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you got insulted for clarifying your intentions, then shame on them. The stalking appears to be over, however. If it picks up again, there are measures you can take. Maybe you'd like to demand a public apology in order to resolve this, but I fail to see much benefit in that.

Here is a somewhat related incident from 5 days ago: I noticed this edit and I remembered seeing that kind of formatting "fix" before (no one ever had a problem with it), but found it entirely unnecessary so I contacted the user on their talk page. He was obviously acting in good faith to make the comments better readable, so I explained why his edit was unnecessary. His reply on my talk page confirms the good faith and also a concern about the bureaucracy involved.

For proper etiquette and civility, we don't need strict measures for when and when not to format others' comments. Having to post on a talk page first can be seen as creepy also. –Pomte 04:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are saying that it is less creepy to constantly edit someone else's words without approaching them first (as per Etiqutte) then to tell them that they have a problem, then I suggest people feeling such way don't bother editing or telling them about the problem and let that person figure it out on their own. It doesn't matter if someone has good intentions or bad intentions, trampling on someone else's words and editing them isn't respectful in any kind of way. Wikipedia isn't for perfectionists or Monk like characters who need to make everything exactly in the way that they think is best. SanchiTachi 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Pomte:

No, I was trying to make them readable. Stop misrepresenting my actions. Forgive the following, but you're being a drama queen about this, and even in not commenting I've had my fill. I did not change the meaning of your words, I did not imply you were somehow inept, I only fix a perceived problem. You, in turn, have blown this thing out of proportion and now have it in your head that I'm somehow attacking you through formatting errors. You would do well to simply let this go, as this is not some grand Wikiquette violation on my part. It is only a misunderstanding, which rather than attempt to reconcile, you have dragged out far longer than you should have. You are not accomplishing anything through this, as other users clearly do not hold your point of view. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above user has just lied. Proof: 1. My post was indented once, as it was responding to myself. He edited that. That edit was not about "readability" and nothing changed. 2. He edited someone else's text that got sandwiched. Since the sandwich happened at the end of a paragraph and was visible, it was not "un"readable. 3. He removed a quotation mark from a quote, which did not make it "readable" in any kind of way. It is not about blowing anything out of proportion. It is about the above user constantly editing my posts unfairly, disrespecting other people's posts in the village pump, talking about "winning" all the time, and unable to apologize for his actions which have trampled on the posts of others and disrespected many of the most basic Wikipedia Etiquette rules. The above user feels that he needs to continue to lie and act petty so that he can "win" this discussion instead of apologizing for editing where he did not have the right to edit. SanchiTachi 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuck it. I tried. Have fun trying to make me wrong. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh...it seems this entire discussion here has taken a turn for the worse. I'm not even going to try and get involved like I was thinking about doing. Just settle down everyone, and try good faith. Jmlk17 07:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion is bordering on the lame. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're about four months late to be pointing that fact out. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Question re: Deleted Pages

Ok, sorry, this is a stupid question, but when pages are deleted, are they truly gone? Or can pieces be cut from them for the purpose of creating a better page?

I'm asking because a religion-oriented page (Omnitheism) I had contributed to a long time ago was deleted; this wasn't that big a deal (and I agree there were some deficiencies in the page that was deleted), but the problem is that since that time, the page keeps being re-created as (I hate to sound judgmental, but...) a very non-encyclopedic, belief-centered, new-age piece. I'm sure the current version is a good faith contribution, and I'm not suggesting removal, but as an encyclopedia page it doesn't cut it.

Personally, I have enough interest & knowledge to contribute something, but not enough to re-create the page from scratch, especially when, truthfully, I don't really want to be associated much with the current version (which technically is not incorrect, however, and therefore will not be deleted by me -- that would be ironic given the title. Plus, the exact same thing will probably happen again...and again...). So I'm wondering if there is any way that I can access the mostly-good old article, copy much of the text, add some refs (the lack of which was the reason for deletion) and hopefully work in the "crystal" version that's currently up, in the appropriate way.

Does anyone know if this is possible? Aloha, --Laualoha 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles are not gone, they're just inaccessible to most editors. You can ask an admin to provide you with a copy of a deleted article. For an article that keeps getting recreated you'll probably need to specify a date for the version you want.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:03, 09/27/2007

Likewise, if a recreated version of the article is clean enough to stick and contains multiple reliable sources, you can also ask at WP:DRV to have the edit history of the article and talk page restored. MrZaius^talk 10:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice

I believe I'm trying to do the right thing, but am willing to admit when I might be wrong on a subject.

Short summary:

User:Hammersoft started an RfC

Some people responded

User:Andrwsc pointed out there were sub-issues involved in a sub-bullet

I was involved in both series of discussions and, when I realized that a simple statement wasn't going to accurately summarize each of the related issues, I started another sub-bullet which touched on points in both the original RfC, the added section, and other related matters.

Now some people in the discussion feel that these sub-bullets do not belong in the RfC and have set them aside as separate bullets. However, I believe that changes the discussion (comments like "see above" and "what I said earlier" no longer make sense). Additionally, my comments directly relating to the RfC (see here) will also not be included in the discussion). This will only be made worse if the bots archive the discussion and it is further separated from the original comments.

I have tried to point out that this moving/re-bulleting of comments doesn't follow WP:TALK and I feel this is an attempt to exert ownership over a discussion. I have tried to discuss this with those who have done such a move:

With User:Camelbinky, my request for clarification was simply deleted with no explanation: [2]

With Hammersoft, I've had a series of discussions. It's hard to summarize or even show diffs as he keeps removing comments (this isn't any insinuation that he's done anything wrong, but simply a statement that it can be hard to follow), but I'll do my best: [3][4][5]

A conversation with Mr. Z-man seems to have hit the same brick wall as with Hammersoft, sans the profanity/accusations of impropriety.

I've tried a different way at doing this and I hope this meets everyone's approval: [6]. This still focuses the intent on the original RfC issues, but still leaves the rest as a footnote that will be appropriately archived with the rest of the discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• No. As I've said repeatedly, if you want to answer questions you have regarding trademarks and their usage here on Wikipedia, start your own RfC. Piggy backing your 7 questions onto the 2 questions asked by the RfC disrupts the RfC and severely muddles the picture. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1. You don't own it and cannot dictate what happens in the discussion or how later discussion evolves. It isn't your RfC.
2. I have no specific issue with splitting the discussion into components as they already had their own subheadings, but it should be done properly, as I've tried to explain to you but you've derisively/pejoratively dismissed as Wikilawyering.
3. In order to make this easier for you, please just pick what you'd like to have done and I will do all the work: 1. Put it back simply in the format it was originally in (not likely your pick, but I'll still leave it as an option) 2. Appropriately split it as annotated in WP:TALK.

Your basic intentions are fine, noble, and appropriate (appropriately headers for discussions). It's the application I have a problem with. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please, just start your own RfC. All of this argumentation is pointless. Multiple people have disagreed with you on whether or not to include an extra "=" before/after the section header where it is split. The amount of noise generated over this vs. the two characters were talking about...the ratio has got to be 2,000:1 now. Enough. Leave it alone. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• You must have missed #3 (see above) where I explicitly mentioned the process that should have been followed from the beginning (which is my only major beef). You obviously reject the first listed option (again, your choice), so I have fixed it IAW WP:TALK. Previous edits were far more than just two characters, so let's not pretend like they never happened... — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, why is my name mentioned here, especially without contacting me? If I am a party to something then please contact me so I can defend myself. I deleted an unwanted unsolicited post on my talk page because 1- it was rude and obnoxious 2- I read it 3- I have no want to get involved with drama, it didnt mean enough to me to respond. I think I should be commended for not involving myself further instead of demonized for not responding. Deletion of posts on your talk page after you read them is allowed and is common practice, even certain admins do that. Please dont involve me in this drama, while I do think the sections should be separated I dont want my name involved as if I did something wrong. My edit was legitimate. Please strike the post with my name or better yet delete it altogether. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your name is mentioned because I attempted to contact you to clarify what you'd done. Instead of responding you deleted my message with no response. That is all I stated. I never said there was anything wrong with what you did, merely that nothing came out of my attempt at dispute resolution.

I do not need to contact you to state what I've done and the results of my actions.

There was nothing rude nor obnoxious in what I stated on your talk page. It was a statement of my take on the situation and a request for clarification since your edit summary gave no rationale other than "this is needed" and you didn't leave a note on the associated talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant question

Does anyone know who originally came up with the name "village pump"? Cause I think it's brilliant. Equazcion (talk) 01:10, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

I can't say with absolute certainty. But it looks as though it was created by Ed Poor (talk · contribs) with this edit back on 29 July 2002. older ≠ wiser 01:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Language icon templates

Resolved

Does anyone know why we are using icon's here when Wikipedia:Accessibility and Flagcruft#Remember_accessibility_for_the_visually_impaired say we shouldn't forget our visually impaired readers? Shouldn't these provide alt text or just be text? Gnevin (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

They are just (formatted) text. They are not images. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're poorly named and aren't really icons in the usual sense. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah ,sorry about that. They where appearing like icons to me yesterday or maybe I just didn't look properly, either way that answers my question Gnevin (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice (April 26)

Topic Bay of Quinte.

Unresolved issues in Talk Page, however I do feel that it is relevant that a non-business funded 'link' that is an 'official page' for the region should not be ommitted because of what is called : Spam. Spam is completely different, and it is well noted why there are rules for Spam.

Please help.

User:RyanRiWilliams — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the WP:Village pump (policy) noticeboard; it is not the actual noticeboard itself. Please post at WP:ELN instead, which is a noticeboard specifically for external link questions. PleaseStand ^(talk) 19:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it for me instead of doing nothing ;) --RyanRiWilliams (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Now I have moved it for you. PleaseStand ^(talk) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV application across the article database

Moved to WP:VPP § NPOV application across the article database

 – This is the discussion page for the Village Pump; policy discussions should happen on the project page. TheFeds 07:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Alatari (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{editprotected}}

File:FlaggedRevs-2-1.svg

File:FlaggedRevs-2-1.svg

To me, the flagged revision logo is too similar to the CBS logo (see this file: File:CBS news logo.jpg) and is an invitation for a trademark infringement suit... Is it sufficiently different to pass the test?

70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add a new discussion section, but Edit Filter #52 is not allowing it, and it's not giving any reason why other than this is "vandalism". Seems edit filter 52 is broken, so can someone who isn't restricted by edit filter 52 add this section to the VP? Thanks.

70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Filter 52 fixed. Prodego ^talk 04:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Engaging in conversation on a user page

Would it be okay for me to talk about whatever I feel like on my user page, with other users? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, see wp:USERPAGE, especially WP:UP#NOT. Yoenit (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (I meant to post this on the project page.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Formatting on the policy page

Why is the Table of Contents of the Village Pump Policy page squeezed into one column on the left hand side of the page? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Squeezed"? TOCs are usually on the left side of the page. On this page it is forced to be underneath the header. See Help:TOC for more info. Killiondude (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. It's fine, now. Before, it was very narrow. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Wikipedia

There is an Rfc at Talk:Wikipedia#RfC: Wikipedia in italics? that may interest you. Please come and read the summary, then include your !vote if you would like to do so. Thank you in advance for your consideration. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 20:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Electoral Commission RfC

The RfC to select the three-member Electoral Commission for the WP:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 was opened. We need volunteers for the commission, and comments on their suitability from all editors. Details are found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Help

Can someone help me find a VPP discussion regarding http and https? It seemed to be not that long ago...--Mishae (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: There's Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111#As WP uses HTTPS, should (some) external links, too?, but IIRC discussions mainly occurred elsewhere, such as WP:VPT. In what context do you wish to determine the best protocol? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I believe it something much recent then Archive 111. Some users are adding back https to Wayback Machine Internet Archive, I just want to point them to the new protocol that they are probably not aware off. The recent discussion was somewhere this year (probably July), about getting rid of http and https mainly from Internet Archives and YouTube, and to establish pure url protocol. Under which number is it labeled in WP:VPT?--Mishae (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Most recent is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Padlock symbol. It's quite easy to test whether protocol-relative URLs are preferable: visit the same URL as both http: and https: for example,

• http://web.archive.org/web/20140420095842/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8250592.stm
• https://web.archive.org/web/20140420095842/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8250592.stm

and if one of them throws an error, the other is the only acceptable form; if neither throws an error, protocol-relative is preferable. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Shorten extended section header?

{{collapse top|title=Restored my comment at original venue}}

moved here from WP:VPP#Bad heading for reasons indicated there

Please could someone trim the very (the disruptively-) long heading, above, which is bloating both the ToC and edit summaries? My attempts to do so have been reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Pigsonthewing is referring to: WP:VPP#How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic?... While that heading is long, I don't find it disruptively long. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar, see also above, short discussion directly under section title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

{{Collapse bottom}}

This is the appropriate venue for this discussion. Close if no longer active. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The page is impossible to load or edit

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is far too long. Will someone please archive the closed threads on that page. That page is so long that my browser cannot load it, and I cannot edit it. Please reset the robot that archives that page to do so at a reasonable level, where people can actually still edit it. James500 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Done, but I won't be surprised if someone undoes my manual archiving since those three threads were very recently closed. The page is still quite large on account of the AfD culture thread that's still ongoing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I did finally managed to load the edit window on the umpteenth attempt by employing great ingenuity in manipulating my browser, but thanks anyway. I really appreciate that. James500 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I thought so. @James500: Maybe we can work on archiving out the finished parts of the Afd thread instead. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we split the discussion into a subpage and include a link to it from here? That would solve both problems. --Jayron32 15:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea, but that a long term solution would be to create some additional 'village pump' pages, with a narrower focus, to spread the load of discussions, or to archive more quickly. This page is often impossible or difficult to load or edit. So are others. James500 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a terrible idea. WP:TOOBIG suggests that the upper limit for readability is about 100k, but this page and the other village pumps are frequently the venue for large, very active discussions. I went through a few months of history on this page and it's been anywhere from 100k to 600k at any given time, and each archive is 400k. That's a lot of stuff for slow connections. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the RfC on Transgender issues is currently under (a lot of) further discussion as we explore the fall out from it. These discussions are taking place on multiple policy and guideline pages which have been affected by it... and the discussions on those pages include links pointing to the closed discussion here.
To move the (now closed) RFC off this page would break all the links posted on those pages... making it very difficult for editors to find the relevant discussions that they are being pointed to.
I realize that keeping the RFC on this page makes navigating the page somewhat unwieldy ... but the RFC was one of the more complicated closures we have had in years... and the fall out from it is not yet settled. Perhaps there are other threads that can be moved to archives, but I think the RFC needs to stay here for a while yet. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, James500, if you click the edit link beside the subthread you mean to edit, then the editor will only load the code for that thread. That should help you some with page loading issues. The bot is currently set to auto-archive threads that have been idle more than 7 days, which is pretty aggressive, but none of the threads here currently qualify.

That raises another issue, though: ClueBot will automatically archive the MOS threads a couple days from now. We could {{bump}} them I suppose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't work. Actually the page won't load properly at all for me. None of the edit links appear at all on the page, or when they appear, none of them work. (And the page itself takes forever to load). The only way that I was able to edit was to put the URL of the edit window (the one that ends with #/editor/7) directly into my browser, which seems to partly bypass loading the page itself. James500 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. The page is currently about 340k, after ClueBot and I sloughed off about 110k to the archive. Are you on a slow connection? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Blueboar: given that at least one editor who wants to participate in a current discussion is not able to due to a closed discussion present on the page, would you mind terribly if the MOS threads are archived and a link to the archive left in their place? ClueBot has nailed one of them already and if we leave it how it is now then they're going to be split onto separate pages anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

I helped write two of the RfCs that are up right now and I think that they should get formal closure—when the time comes. I'd like to wait at least a week after the last new comment before posting the request. How is the archive bot on this page set up? I've seen a seven-day bot changed to a ten-day bot but is there a way to tell it to skip anything with an unexpired RfC tag? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Use {{DNAU}} if you want the bot(/s?) to not archive the page automatically, or to postpone the auto-archival of the threads. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

On this subject, what happens when an RfC is archived without being formally closed? It happened with one I was following: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads. ^<anemone>_>projectors< 11:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know

I left a comment at RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes of non-BLPs-in or out? and after I saved the page I discovered that the RFC had closed two minutes earlier. Not deliberate. Moriori (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability in Knight's Cross Holder articles

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Notability in Knight's Cross Holder articles

 – Village pump talk pages are usually reserved for discussions about the Village pump itself. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Policy enforcement crusades?

Do we have a guideline or essay that advises against going on Policy enforcement "crusades"... I know we have WP:POINT... but is there anything else that warns editors about being overly zealous when it comes to policy enforcement? If not, it would be helpful to have something that notes that actions can be considered disruptive... even when the actions have policy behind them. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

My answer to your question is: "I don't know, but probably not." With no way to objectively define "overly zealous", it would be less than useful. One man's "overly zealous" is another man's "unyielding commitment to Wikipedia policy". Differences in perspective like this are precisely what drive most conflict between editors. That said, I would be genuinely interested to see a specific real-life case that couldn't be handled somewhat adequately with things like WP:POINT and WP:DE. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Its one of those things that is kinda covered everywhere, from WP:5P5 to WP:IAR, but I don't know of any place where it is really said explicitly. My wording would be: Don't enforce policies for the sake of enforcing them, remember it needs to benefit the goal of creating an encyclopedia... Monty₈₄₅ 03:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:BURO. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If a majority of editors present consider it overly zealous, it's overly zealous. Consensus rules, and, lacking an uninvolved arbitrator/closer, majority wins (and majority usually wins anyway). Persist too long against the majority, and you violate WP:DE and risk a block. No new guideline or essay necessary, although things could be done to clarify/increase emphasis on this principle: Consensus Is King and WP:CONSENSUS is the overarching policy over all other policy, which was itself established by consensus (including WP:IAR). Since policy always leaves ample room for interpretation, that's the only way it can work. WP:CONSENSUS could be promoted to Wikipedia's only "super-policy". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)