Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Vev (talk | contribs)
76 edits
Line 384: Line 384:


:There are no statistics for your first question, but for your second...our founder, [[Jimbo Wales]], has appeared on CNN to speak about the [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 19:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:There are no statistics for your first question, but for your second...our founder, [[Jimbo Wales]], has appeared on CNN to speak about the [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 19:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
::ty. in fr, we need an advert on TV cause WP is '''collaborative''', ask jimmy --[[User:Vev|Vev]] 19:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:35, 11 February 2006

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here.

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Miscellaneous archive

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Theatre

This is a call for help for a largely significant wikiproject that is being neglected. The wikiprojects for New York Theatre, Broadway Theatre, and Off-Broadway Theatre could use some tender loving care from a group of devoted individuals. If you are interested in the subject, please check out the to-do list and do as little or as much as you can find time to do. Thank you very much.

Clarkefreak ∞ 22:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it spelled Theater? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Theatre#Theatre_or_Theater.3F.-gadfium 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MoS policy is to use the spelling that an editor starts an article with, unless it is use-specific (British spellings in articles about British subjects, American spellings in articles about American subjects.) Since this is clearly an American subject, it should be Theater. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In this case, "theatre" denotes a branch of the performing arts, whereas "theater" refers to the building in which performances or other entertainments are presented." quoted from above-cited grammar article.

Clarkefreak ∞ 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the alternative spelling theater has become more common. The general consensus of most American style guides is to use this spelling unless the word is part of the proper name of a performing arts facility or company, as some venues are branded with "theatre". User:Zoe|(talk) 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, among theatre professionals in the U.S., "theatre" is common for both the art and the building.
Surely the Wikiproject can choose to use the spelling used by theatre professionals rather than the one used by style guides.-gadfium 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be documented? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My gosh, you guys. I put this notice up as a request for help in this project. Can we get this project on its feet first, and worry about spelling later, please? If you are not willing to help, then please do not continue to participate in this conversation. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this isn't helping spark interest, does anyone know another way I could try to attract people to help out with this project? Clarkefreak ∞ 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring's flat tyre complaint

Are Wikipedians aware of (currently banned user) Skyring's report that a car tyre belonging to his daughter was vandalised by someone as the result of some Wikipedian having published his address. It's worrying if true. Details are on his user talk page. Arno 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't believe his address should have been exhibited in this fashion, his claims seem a bit farfetched. Tires get debris embedded in them all the time, the man looking in the window was probably completely harmless, and I doubt any editor is simultaneously immature enough and has means enough to travel a great distance to stalk and play pranks on a contributor they don't like. Also, if Skyring made his full real name and general location available, and has a listed address, the address could have been obtained by anyone at any time. Deco 04:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling a bit uncertain about the link between the tyre damage and Wikipedia myself, nonetheless his claims are of concern and worth mentioning here. Also, the man (assuming again that there is a connection between him and the tyre damage) could well have been a local. He need not have been a wikipedian, either, just someone who got cheesed off at Skyring after reading Skyring's admittedly erratic views on Australia. Arno 05:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a screw removed from my tire. It happens. I don't think anybody intentionally put it into my tire, any more than anyone intentionally put a nail in his tire. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't people usually knife tires rather than leaving little nails in them? It seems like it would be easier and more effective. Kaldari 08:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nail was a tall one, Kaldari. His photos show that. I can understand his concerns about it not being accidental. However, he has now removed what he has written as it 'has served its purpose'. Arno 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome template

There are some disagreements about what would be appropirate to have on {{welcome}}. I started a poll about this, at template talk:welcome. Opinions would be most welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the people who believes each welcome notice should be custom written and different from all others, ideally incorporating personal elements the user has placed on their user page to make them feel like we care about them as a unique person. But then I haven't done too much welcome work and perhaps I underestimate the labour involved. Deco 08:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alost every welcome I place is for a realatively new user who has a redlinked user page, and often an empty user talk page as well. How exactly would I "customize" in that case (which IMO is the modal case)? DES (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a healthy compromise would be to have the default template which should be small, and have only a few very essential links. Below that, the welcoming user may add specific commments about the user to be welcomed. Usually you run into new users by them popping up on your watchlist, so you may have something to write them about. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I often start out with "Hi! I noticed your contributions to Xxxx..." You can check out their user contributions to find something. This helps them feel like their efforts are noticed and valued. Deco 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got a welcome template on my talk page one day. It didn't make me feel any more welcome or provide any more info than I might have gotten browsing around, say, through Wikipedia:Community Portal. It just felt like junk mail. I'd rather have gotten two personal words than a long impersonal slab of template. John Reid 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifuture

Does anybody have an interest in a wiki futurist discussion topic about "What will wikipedia be like after 20 years?" :-) — RJH 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Wikipedian: Gerard hadn't been on Wikipedia in some time, being busy with other things. "What catching up I'll have to do!" he thought with a sigh. He looked at the Village Pump, but to his bewilderment the last post was in 2020, over 4 years ago. He checked his watchlist, and it was like a wasteland: half the edit summaries contained insults about his mother, and the other half claims of how large the vandal's penis is. He began to revert them only to discover that each vandal's work was preceded by that of 15 others. Every article, big and small, esoteric and well-known, had disintegrated into a dilapidated message-board/sandbox filled with pictures of large farm animals and stories about exotic dancers. In desperation, he clicked the random page link, but every time he clicked it, up came another ravaged article, and another, and another.
Finally, he decided to visit Meta to see what was going on. The logo had been replaced with profanity and the main page advertised a pirate web site, but for the most part the vandals had left it alone due to lack of interest. There, he found a note from the Jane Wales, the daughter of the traitor Jimbo (whose name was no longer spoken), who said that a series of conflicts over policy combined with a loss of support from Jimbo's former employer had resulted in massive fragmentation of the community, followed by decay. Even she had given up on Wikipedia. All that was left was a link to the last database dump from February 2021, a 250 gigabyte download, before the site was abandoned by its contributors altogether.
Gerard soberly clicked the link. Wikipedia would rise again. Deco 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. :) — RJH 21:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, I think Wikipedia will continue to grow over the years, in both depth and breadth, but I expect there to be some big changes to the software and to our policies. For example, as we get more topics our standards for notability tend to shift downward. I think our international community from outside the U.S. and Britain will also grow more, perhaps leading to an emphasis on simpler language. New projects are sure to appear, and I think some of the fledgling 'pedias will become much more important. And of course, many text and image works of the early 20th century will fall out of copyright and become reused here, including old encyclopedias. May the Wikipedia live forever! Deco 03:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And lets not forget Semantic MediaWiki :o) CheekyMonkey 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwith costs

Are advertisements inevitable seeing as how WP is growing in popularity? Is there some other plan to pay for these costs? I don't think fundraisers will be enough. Forgive me if this the wrong place to put this in. Gflores Talk 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up many times. At this point most people believe we are sustainable by donations alone. Deco 06:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we will eventually have to succumb to ads. 132.239.90.209 07:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bandwidth costs are a surprisingly small part of total costs. New hardware costs far more. I see no reason why we can't rely on donations permanently. I just worry that Jimbo isn't really focused on the site but marginal ideas like distributing hard copies in Africa and I don't trust him not to override consensus to raise funds for that sort of thing. CalJW 18:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Can I put this image in Commons? --200.93.196.236 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag says that is is public domain world wide, so i don't see why not. Be sure to copy allrelevant source and license info, and include a note that it came via the en wikipedia, please. DES (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also see if you can find a higher-resolution original source. About.com's version is downscaled for their web page. Deco 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. --200.93.196.236 14:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from the Help desk):

Couldn't figure out where to bring this up, so I'll do so here. Placeopedia uses Wikipedia data - apparently perfectly legally, under the GFDL. However, it also uses a version of the Wikipedia logo, which as I understand it is not GFDLed but is copyright to the Wikimedia foundation. How should this be handled, as it's clearly not a simple GFDL violation?

Another issue is that the site is being promoted directly on Wikipedia, with the use of {{placeopedia}} and [[Category:Places on Placeopedia]]. (I realise this probably ought to go to WP:CFD and WP:TFD, but I thought I should mention it here as well).

I'm assuming good faith - the site appears to be a non-profit making mashup, and it's probably just some people getting over-enthusiastic - but I do think these issues need to be sorted out, the logo especially. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have visited the site. The use of wikipedia articles seems to be entirely via links back to wikipedia, not by reuse, so there seems to be no issue there. The logo is a problem, unless this site has obtained permisison for its use. As for the template, some such tempweltes have been deleted on TfD, while others have been kept. DES (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Board is aware of the logo use on Placeopedia. Our legal team are apparently working on a logo use contract for this sort of situation, but until then, Placeopedia have informal permission to use it. Angela. 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...The Board! This is just another example of Wikipedia becoming scarily like Burundi under Firestone's control.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.wikipedia.org.nz

Someone has registered www.wikipedia.org.nz. They're running a wiki on it, but not making any attempt to pass it off as wikipedia apart from the domain name. What if anything should we do about this? GeorgeStepanek brought this up on someone's talk page.-gadfium 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like any assistance in drafting the letter or challenging the owner of this domain then I have a lot of experience from my lawsuit with Scientology over scienTOMogy and I would be happy to help. It's a cut and dried case and no lawyers need be involved (see this site for NZ domain dispute resolution info. Just contact me from my user page. Glen Stollery 12:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation's legal people are looking into this. --mav 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Materiel is a word

Posting this here probably won't make much of a difference, but for those who are unaware materiel is indeed a word, and not simply a misspelling for material. It seems that for any article that uses the word materiel, at least once a month someone drops by and "corrects" the spelling. Repeatedly reverting this is getting rather annoying. - SimonP 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've encountered this too. Try using matériel; the accent makes it look less like a simple mispelling to the unintiated.--Pharos 01:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You think that's bad - I've seen anons frequently changing "provably" to "probably", which of course completely alters the meaning. I've resorted to either rewording the sentence or putting BIG SCARY COMMENTS in the wikitext. Deco 02:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem spelling is the word haemophilia. I once corrected what seemed like a minor spelling error on the haemophilia page and that sparked off a hornet's nest. Arno 02:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a regional thing: Americans just have no patience for æ. See List of words that may be spelled with a ligature.--Pharos 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that instance, the title spelt the word one way and the article spelt it another way. I corrected the article version to be consistent with the title and the next thing I knew I was under fire in my talk page. I think I must've upset some delicate standoff there between the American and British forces. Arno 03:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but policy is on your side. The Manual of Style advocates consistency of American/British spelling conventions within single articles. Deco 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how true that was back then. Good to hear about it , though. Arno 03:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a number of pairs of words that cause this sort of problem. One I'm often running across is enquiries and inquiries (informal questions vs formal investigations) which can completely change the meaning of a sentence. And as for a sports star either re-signing or resigning... Grutness...wha? 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should be constructing a list of these, so that we can help track down incorrect "corrections" and, more importantly, advise editors on words to avoid so that this type of hypercorrection doesn't arise. I realise that it seems silly to have to fix something that's correct, but on the other hand, if some readers think it's incorrect, it does hurt their comprehension - any confusion is a potential problem. Deco 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.wikipedia.org post in news section

Posted something about www.wikipedia.org in the news section of the Village Pump. The post should probably have gone here, so I'm adding a very brief post here to direct people there. Carcharoth 09:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia joke - old or new?

Can anyone help with this Wikipedia joke? I'm not sure if I've heard it somewhere before, or whether I just made it up. I suspect the former, and would be grateful if someone could find an earlier mention of the joke. The joke (or deep insightful comment - your mileage may vary), involves comparing Wikipedia to the classic story used to illustrate ideas about probability. The story runs along the lines of "given enough time, a group of monkeys tapping away at typewriters could produce the complete works of Shakespeare" (purely by chance). Was this the model on which Wikipedia was based? (Tongue firmly in cheek)... Carcharoth 09:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's been passed around. At one time it was even a suggested logo. The original version of the joke was actually about the Internet. Deco 10:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And there's an article about this topic here. Enjoy JackofOz 10:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Very funny. Especially the talk page, here and here (the bit about the useful life of the universe). Carcharoth 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have http://www.camerapedia.org which appears to be a part of Wikipedia, all about cameras, and all it does is repeat entries articles that Wikipedia already has. There appears to be no connection between the two, though Wikipedia links to Camerapedia. The latter may have a bunch of links and the former will have some detailed info - but there is little or no overlap, they use different templates, they're on different sites, changes on one won't reflect the other and so on. This is very frustrating for the WP/Camerapedia editor as it doubles the work. Can't we just merge all these articles and keep them on the same site and allow them to adhere to certain common standards? The Camerapedia site seems much easier to set down policies in, and the community appears close-knit and co-operative, but there is no similar presence on Wikipedia. The Wikiproject on digital cameras has almost no participants. The whole affair is confusing and simply redundant. Can someone please explain or remedy this? -- Simonides 08:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camerapedia is actually not a part of Wikipedia. However, they do both adhere to the GFDL 1.2 so content from either can be freely used on the other. But, like many specialised wikis, content that is suitable for camerapedia may well not be notable enough for wikipedia. But then again camerapedia is not aiming to be a an enyclopedia of everything. Which is why it is good to have both. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image editing help

I was was wondering if anyone here could help me edit some pictures that I'm going to upload to Wikipedia. I'm trying to make panoramas with two or more images. Normally, I can just combine them with Photoshop with no special editing. However, these pictures have differing light levels and the division between them is very noticeable. I've tried adjusting the brightness and contrast and have gotten some better results, but still far from what I would consider acceptable. If anyone knows how to fix this, I would greatly appreciate it if they would help me. It would probably be better to leave a message on my talk page than responding here. I'm going offline now, so I'll get back to you tomorrow. Thanks, Kjkolb 12:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I would probably adjust them as close as possible, then use a clone brush to eliminate the seam. There are more image editors at Commons:Village pump. You may have better luck asking at that forum. Deco 17:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kjkolb 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review process

Discussion of the relative advantages of having an article fully restored following "any good faith request" while deletion review is underway. Some have suggested that articles may and should be improved while discussion takes place, other have complained that it obviates all XfD and DRv decisions if a single user can ask for and receive undeletion.

Please direct further discussion of this matter to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review.

brenneman(t)(c) 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist Spam/Vandalism?

I checked out my full watchlist today for the first time ever, and noticed a number of things that either don't exist or never existed, or I am quite confident that I didn't put there (a number of red links). Has anyone noticed this type of--what I can only assume is--"Watchlist Spam"? --RealGrouchy 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really threw me, too, the first time I noticed it. What happened is that a vandal moved the page you were watching to a new title - ie, RealGrouchy to RealGrouchy being attacked by pelicans. When a page you watch is moved, you end up watching both the old page (now a redirect) and the "new" one. Someone will have then moved it straight back to RealGrouchy, and then deleted RealGrouchy being attacked by pelicans so it doesn't hang around as a pointless redirect. However, by the end of this, you have both pages on your watchlist... and your watchlist retains deleted pages, so you end up with this bizzare redlink there.
As to why you didn't notice it at the time, page moves don't show on watchlists until someone edits the newly-moved page, so a move and then move-back won't show up at all unless you go looking for it. Shimgray | talk | 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - threw me the first time I saw that, too. It happens a lot when you have a vandal-fighter's homepage on your watchlist! Grutness...wha? 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! I've wondered about that myself a few times. Kafziel 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need Feedback on Open Source :: Free and Open Source

From a Wikipedia E-mail Response:

Dear Neil Das,

Thank you for your mail.

Greetings! You're right that this email address would be answered by one person who can't really speak for Wikipedia. But you might get a good variety of responses by asking the community on our community forum, the Village Pump, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)

Hope this helps; best of luck with your paper.

Yours sincerely, Kat Walsh

Letter - Edited:

Dear Wikipedia,

I am currently writing a paper on competition. To prove one of my points that competition is not necessary, and that peaceful collabation is a better alternative, I have written about the open-source community. Since Wikipedia is such an affluent element of this group, I'd like to hear some views on how open-source presents a dilemma to capitalism, in that it has people who do things for the common good without any monetary incentives, and view what they're doing more like an art than a job. Here is an excerpt from my paper:

Open-sourcing is a topic that must be included in any discussion of competition in the modern world. In the more discreet definition, open-sourcing is licensing software for open use to the public and allowing its source code to be distributed and built-upon for profit or personal use. In the more general view, open-sourcing is a mindset of public cooperation, passion for ingenuity, and freely distributed information. The dilemma to capitalists, or rather, competitionists, is the possibility of a growing, evolutionary field of products that somehow keeps up with the technological tidal wave and is supported by enthusiastic workers who devote time and energy for no monetary benefits whatsoever. To truly understand how contradictory capitalism’s portrait of human capability is with the reality of open-sourcing, one must first delve deeper into the root causes and mechanics of capitalism.

If you would like to read more if you can't understand what I'm saying, the open-source passage of the paper is here: Open-sourcing_Passion2.doc

That's a specific idea, and please feel welcome to respond on any topic regarding the philosophy of open source. I know this will probably be answered by an individual who can't really talk in the name of wikipedia, so your own comments would also be accepted. The paper is due February 8th, and a respose before then would be ideal.

Sincerely,

Neil Das

BTW, reading up on open-source in wikipedia ;) I'm seeing that my idea falls more under FOSS(Free and Open Source). I'll have to edit that later in my paper, so any ideas on the philosophy of Free and Open Source (if that is what I seem to be talking about) would be great.


Theuedimaster 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a paper like this I think a good thing to study is the motivations of contributors. In a competition model obviously competitors are motivated by access to resources like money, but the gift economy model is much more complicated. Another important aspect of free content models is how they can fit themselves into nooks and crannies of people's time, whenever they have a spare moment, and with minimal initial investment to participate, especially on Wikipedia where we strive to keep the participation bar as low as possible. I'm sure we have project pages with more info on this stuff somewhere. Deco 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of a newbie on wikipedia, is there any way I could have some links to what you are talking about? Theuedimaster 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closest thing I can think of is Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. I'm sure others have better links. Deco 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about m:Wikipedia sociology, where some of the earlier listed links may be relevant, and m:Power structure? There are also some interesting documents at Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies. My own not-too-passionate two cents on this subject is that Wikipedia participation is still understandable within an utility framework (at least to the extent that utility is understandable in any other economic argument), though obviously the common kludge that utility=money gets pretty much thrown out. I imagine that if one really wanted to, you could make an indifference curve that is not entirely ridiculous with "participation in an encyclopedia" on one axis, "everything else" on the other, and the Wikipedia model signified by a movement outward of the budget constraint along the "participation in an encylopedia" axis. I'm sure someone who actually remembers their econ classes can correct me on this. Cheers, BanyanTree 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deco and BanyanTree! It's real honor for me to be able to include you guys in this paper. Most of it is just my own views, but its good to find some support and additional ideas by other people! Thanks! Theuedimaster 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge: What is the IP range of your national legislature?

This could be fun.

Lotsofissues 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This says the Parliament of Malaysia's domain name is registered to blah, blah, blah. I can't find the exact ranges, but it doesn't matter too much anyway — Malaysians are not known for being very tech-savvy. I doubt Parliament is well-equipped enough for Parliamentarians to have time to vandalise Wikipedia. ^_^ Johnleemk | Talk 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nasty templates

From time to time a scowling demand appears at the top of an article I have done some work on. It demands that something be done about the article because it is in bad shape. Usually the fact that whoever attached the "Fix this!" notice is irritated by something is the only information that can be gained. I believe that these lugs are one of the most anger producing features of Wikipedia. "Either use British spelling or English spelling consistently," is much better than a virtually meaningless heading that disfigures an article. P0M 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to figure out who added the template? If so, just ask them (on their talk page). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People are divided about whether these templates are a good idea. Some say just to leave notes on the talk page, while others say that a template draws more attention from interested contributors. It could certainly be more useful to incorporate a message into the template supplying a more specific type of cleanup to perform. Deco 08:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be, that if you put a [[Cleanup]] tag on an article, you had to go to the Wikipedia:Cleanup page to explain there what you thought needed to be done to the article. Then a huge number of different Cleanup templates were added, and going to the Cleanup page to explain yourself was disparaged. I think we should make more use of the Cleanup page, myself. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think any cleanup-related template that doesn't link to Wikipedia:Cleanup is just spiteful. If someone is genuinely interested in getting help improving an article, they should be using a template that draws quality users from other pages, not just random visitors to that page (who will be able to see for themselves that it needs cleanup anyway). It's definitely frustrating to see vague cleanup tags with no explanation on the talk page. Kafziel 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg-Valois War

This page has got to be close to the record for the most stub templates. The stub listings are almost longer than the article. Has anybody seen a page with more? :-) — RJH 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more it hasn't. That was double the acceptable limit used by WP:WSS! Grutness...wha? 00:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nunca jamás

what is the difference between nunca and jamás. I can't find anything other than they both mean never. Do spanish speakers have a preference?--God of War 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably go to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, but from my little understanding of the language (IANASS), I think nunca means "never", but particularly "never in the past", jamás is a bit more emphatic and bmeans "absolutely never", "at no time", and nunca jamás means something like "never again". Hopefully there are enough Spanish speakers here for someone to put me right on that if I'm wrong... Grutness...wha? 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to know before I take new pictures of the chemical elements?

Most of the pages for the non-radioactive chemical elements contain a fairly grainy, in-test tube picture of a sample of the element (see RTC's listing of elements photos). I think we can do better.

I know someone who has a collection of all the non-radioactive elements, and I'd like to take pictures of them for Wikipedia when he comes in town (in about a month) using my girlfriend's Canon PowerShot Pro1 camera.

I've never undertaken a large photography project before, and I'll probably only have one shot at getting these photos. So I'd like to know what I need to know in order to do a good job. What do I need to bring with me when I go to take the photos? Under what lighting conditions should I take the photos? How should I take the photos so that I maximize quality and uniformity and minimize the amount of editing I have to do? What are the answers to the questions am I too ignorant to ask?

As always, any and all assistance is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, --Starwiz 04:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is the same image set at Commons:Category:Element samples, but also check out Commons:Category:Chemical elements first. Deco 05:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RTK's elements look the same as Commons:Category:Element samples. Commons:Category:Chemical elements has a nice collection of element pictures, but it's not complete. Starwiz 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Thue | talk 15:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's lighten up a bit, with a joke

Q: How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: At least 115 – they are split as follows:
  • 1 to hold the lightbulb.
  • 2 to pull him off the lightbulb until consensus is reached.
  • 1 to propose what to replace the lightbulb with.
  • 13 to give opinions as to the proposal.
  • 2 to butt in and tell the 13 that they’re stepping out of line.
  • 3 to go through the debate adding links to mailing list rulings regarding the changing of lightbulbs.
  • 4 to go through the debate removing links as it’s not allowed to edit other people’s comments.
  • 1 to blank the debate.
  • 1 to revert the blanking.
  • 2 to propose the blocking of the blanker.
  • 7 to enter into a debate regarding the question of blocking the blanker.
  • 1 developer to talk about the technical difficulties of changing the lightbulb.
  • 2 to resign from Wikipedia because their comments have been ignored.
  • 3 to consistently add pornography to the debate page.
  • 4 newbies to mistakenly add their opinions in the wrong place.
  • 8 registered users to bite the newbies.
  • 1 to remove the old lightbulb.
  • 3 to painstakingly replace the old lightbulb.
  • 2 to close the debate.
  • 1 to inform everyone of the rules against closing debates without consensus.
  • 2 to begin a drive to get consensus to close the original debate.
  • 13 to give opinions as to the proposal.
  • 2 to butt in and tell the 13 that they’re stepping out of line.
  • 3 to go through the debate adding links to mailing list rulings regarding the changing of lightbulbs.
  • 4 to go through the debate removing links as it’s not allowed to edit other people’s comments.
  • 1 to blank the debate.
  • 1 to revert the blanking.
  • 2 to propose the blocking of the blanker.
  • 7 to enter into a debate regarding the question of blocking the blanker.
  • 1 developer to talk about the technical difficulties of changing the lightbulb.
  • 2 to resign from Wikipedia because their comments have been ignored.
  • 3 to consistently add pornography to the debate page.
  • 4 newbies to mistakenly add their opinions in the wrong place.
  • 8 registered users to bite the newbies.

And the punchline is… the lightbulb doesn’t end up getting changed! This is all nearly true.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, because it's true. :-) Deco 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115 people maybe, but I count myself at least four times in there. Can we multitask? --Golbez 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
at least 116! That lightbulb's a stub until it's been turned on - someone needs to mark it as such. Probably needs to be categorised as well... Grutness...wha? 04:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose creating Wikipedia:Lightbulbs for Changing (WP:LfC) to vote on which bulbs should be changed, and what should replace them. *Dan T.* 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've outlined a process for adding a nomination to LfC:
  1. Turn the light bulb off. Make sure it's off for at least 5 hours before completing the next step.
  2. Stumble around until you locate an alternate light source such as a flashlight or whale blubber lamp. Use it to shine light onto the light bulb.
  3. Read the serial number. Post it to your talk page, the talk page of the last 3 people who changed the light bulb, and update the proposed date for next change on LfC.
  4. Edit {{LfCRecentEntries}} and locate the template for the most recent month. Edit this template and use the {{LfCNominate1}}, {{LfCNominate2}}, and {{LfCNominate3}} templates in the main page, subpage, and summary page. For each one, supply the serial number, a description of why you think the light should be changed, and your top three candidates for the type of light bulb to replace it with. Add the entry to your watchlist and add links to it from the LfC section of your talk page and user page.
  5. The entry will stay on LfC for 23 days. Each user will vote "Change", "Keep", "No Vote", or "I Have Seen the Light", including an explanation of at least 2 paragraphs. Each user is also required to comment on all votes by all other users.
  6. At the end of the nomination period, the closing admin must close the discussion using {{LfCChange}}, {{LfCKeep}}, or {{LfCIHaveSeenTheLight}}. There is one version of this template for the log, the subpage, and the main LfC template. They also have the discretion to replace the vote page with a picture of Bozo the Clown (and not any other clown - any other clown will result in instant and permanent banning).
  7. Next the admin elevates the discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for Lightbulb Changes, where they request a bureaucrat request a developer to change or not change the lightbulb. If there is any dissent, the light bulb is sent back to LfC for a new vote. Jimbo has the authority to override any and all light changes.
  8. Once the light bulb has been changed, the original nominator must within 5 days turn the light on, or it will be reverted to the previous lightbulb. They may also choose a "lightbulb elect" to turn on lightbulb nominations for them. Lightbulb elects must have at least 50,000 edits and a history of never breaking light bulbs. Any lightbulb elect found to have violated these terms is blocked indefinitely.
  9. After the new lightbulb is turned on, its serial number must be recorded at the user's talk page, they must add themselves to the list of users who changed that light bulb with a timestamp, and the corresponding entry in the lightbulb reference table should be filled in. If there is no room in the lightbulb reference table, it must be archived and a new table created.
You get the idea. Deco 00:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should post this in the proposals section so it'll get the right attention. If it takes so long to change lightbulbs here, we should get a working policy as soon as possible. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 05:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how many, as long as you have consensus!
  • I don't know, but if you don't put it in Bugzilla for the devs to see it'll never get changed.
  • After a 5-day discussion period, 75% of those who comment or so, unless someone has really good reasons not to—unless Jimbo decides he wants to go turn on the light.

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the suggestion of a "whale blubber lamp." Whale oil is an animal product from an endangered species. We clearly must spend an additional 137 posts arguing what would be better to put in place of the "whale blubber lamp." Don't forget to include a sprinkling of ad homs about tree-huggers vs. planet destroyers. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot one to start a poll to "gauge consensus", three to vote in support of changing the lightbulb, five to oppose, six to abstain, three to make nonsense votes such as "this poll is nonsense on stilts" or "I still haven't stopped beating my wife yet", and five to vote for "polls are evil". Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Image:Banner whose side are you on.png

Hi all. I'd like to get a few comments on an image at Wikipedia:Banners and buttons--I started a discussion on the talk page. I really don't think it's a good idea for that image to be posted on other websites advertising Wikipedia... I think it would encourage more vandalism. What do others think? Reply over there! ~MDD4696 00:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No fair...the vandals get the cooler inverted version. I think I'm switching over :) ;) — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely encourage vandalism if posted on outside websites. I also agree with Ilyanep - the black side looks way cooler. Terrible idea. Kafziel 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captcha

Has anyone else been given a captcha test on editing? I've just been presented with the following while attempting to comment on my talk page:

Your edit includes new URL links; as a protection against automated spam, you'll need to type in the words that appear in this image:
(What is this?)
File:Wiki captcha.png

It cannot be stressed enough that this is an extremely bad idea. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got inputanode - cute! But a pathetic idea.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, come to think of it, WP's been going downhill a lot recently.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I don't completely hate it. A lot of my vandalism fighting is with spammers. Maybe if there's a way to make it only come up for anonymous IP users... Kafziel 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The captcha was briefly enabled sitewide while investigating a vandalbot attack. This may happen from time to time. --Brion 20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good idea to me. Vandalism patrol takes a lot of effort - including finding vandalism from logged-in accounts. Rmhermen 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ambigious for me

can anyone please give the exact definition of the following short names people usually use in edit summary to flag reverted vandalism etc. The problem I am sometimes wondering what they exactly ment by that.

  • rvv
  • rvt
  • rmv
  • rmt

→AzaToth 13:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rvv means reversion of vandalism, I beleive rvt simply means revert.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And rm is "remove", so the last two would be "remove vandalism" and "remove test", respectively. --cesarb 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also the edit summary legend, or for more general uses, the glossary. --cesarb 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
some editors just use rmv for "remove" BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I've offered these incredibly obtuse edit summaries as one reason why everybody should have the rollback link. Deco 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anime

anime means Japanese animation and is the hip hop of the new age of teens who like japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogoboi662 (talk • contribs)

Ha ha ha... man, I love this place. ;) Kafziel 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish road signs

The most of them have been uploaded, so I trnaslated the common page to english at Road signs in Sweden, they are all in svg-format and ther are approx 400 of them. →AzaToth 01:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, although of course this article needs more textual content. Very nicely done and all uploaded to the right place (Commons). Good job. Deco 02:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How may users are there

Does anybody have the link for information on how many users we currently have.--Dakota ~ ° 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 916,730 (from the statistics page [1]) Yellowmellow45 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. Thats 600,000 users since registered in Aug. 05. (comment by DakotaKahn)

I'm surprised the article to user ratio is so low, about 1.054. -- Kjkolb 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is WP known?

how percent of US people know WP? & is TV speaking about WP? ty --Vev 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no statistics for your first question, but for your second...our founder, Jimbo Wales, has appeared on CNN to speak about the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Johnleemk | Talk 19:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ty. in fr, we need an advert on TV cause WP is collaborative, ask jimmy --Vev 19:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=39237481"