Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or - for assistance - at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

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

Free Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars each in Amazon.com with no prior warning

Resolved

 – Nothing more we can do here. Boldly marking this as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Around 20.000 Free Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars each in Amazon.com with no prior warning

"All texts of this book are extracted from Wikipedia. [...] Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. Some information in this book maybe (sic) misleading or wrong."

History of Georgia (country), by Alphascript Publishing, pp. 4 [1]

This is the kind of worst case scenario for wikipedia, where people are deprived from their hard earned money with false advertising. People are scammed via our free content.

Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars each in Amazon.com via a Publisher, with no prior warning in amazon page yet, as printed in 4th page of the "book" after you buy it [2]

We require a huge task force that can add a warning and link to Wikipedia for thousands of similar titles in Amazon.com as customer review so that people might be warned about this issue and not scammed. Read VDM Publishing House for details.

Not sure right place to post, but feel free to move or duplicate the thread elsewhere. Kasaalan (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

copied from Template talk:Announcements/Community bulletin board. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is now at least the 3rd time this has been posted about on the Pumps. See User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript_Publishing_sells_free_articles_as_expensive_books and these pages. Long story short, Amazon refuses to do anything about it, the WMF isn't looking like it'll do anything about it, and recourse via individual editors is limited outside of such vigilante action. In other words, Wikipedians are already aware of it. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Being aware doesn't solve anything, this is a huge scandal and I was about to buy 2 books, which turn out to be wikipedia articles. Consider they are used in academic thesis or dissertations. That is unacceptable. Then why do we keep making efforts for free for anyone, if some people charge and scam them for our efforts.

Solution is, we should create a task force, get accounts and leave some warnings as user comments in amazon, or better code a bot to do it for more than 17 thousand "books".

Morever, we may all mail customer service of amazon in protest. And if amazon still refuses and remove our comments or links to wikipedia articles, then we will inform media about this huge scandal so that how public opinion and trust changes about that site.

Selling scam will not turn out good for anyone. Kasaalan (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Amazon must be guilty of some kind of fraud because if you look at [3] then it lists "1,043 customer reviews" but if you see them then they are for the actual book !. The Alphascript book (cost 43 bucks) is the Wikipedia articles and it is 68 pages long but the actual book (hey a bargain at 10 buck) [4] is 368 pages long and also has the same 1043 customer reviews). And I thought Readers Digest was bad enough but that is some awesome compression. I just can't understand how in a country with a zillion frickin lawyers someone hasn't called Amazon's bluff on this crap. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is the 3rd time, then the issue hasn't been properly solved yet. I just searched for the book review in amazon to find some info over it, found it is a wikipedia article and PrimeHunter's pages to saved a 100 dollars. But apparently some people scammed the same way, that is unacceptable.

Discussion Wikipedia:Alphascript

Also we should inform all the wikipedia founders, admins, sysops and executives about this situation. This why we elect themwikipedia foundation executives and members, and one of the reasons why they get their salaries. Actually we should mail or put an information bar at top to warn all community, users and readers. If village pump is not the right place, then please direct us where we can have a discussion with leading members of wikipedia on how we can deal with this serious issue.Kasaalan (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but completely unsalaried. :) I'm also as powerless in this situation as anybody else. It is completely legal to reproduce Wikipedia's content and sell it, under our licensing terms, so long as the authors are properly attributed and the license is carried forward. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. If they aren't giving proper attribution, then the actual contributors to articles being misused have legal recourse for copyright violations, but the Wikimedia Foundation itself has no claim as it does not own copyright in any of the content generated by its users. I agree it's a pretty shocking scheme to make people pay high dollar value for something they could get for free (and I'm particularly shocked that the "look inside" on the Devil Wears Prada product shows the original book, and not the Wikipedia content). Amazon lists content from almost anybody (see [5] for how easy it is); I don't know if they'd reject these people for having a shoddy product. Notifying the media might actually be a viable idea, though. I would imagine some news services would be very interested in a story like this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl you know I am a senior editor and I don't get paid either, Wikipedia foundation members getting payed montly to deal with issues about wikipedia. If the publisher would have put a warning about it is a printed version of a Wikipedia article titled ... and dated ... it would be a fair and nice service who likes to read wikipedia in printed fashion. This is just a scam with false advertising and no prior warning. I noticed 10 users with highest edit count members of wikipedia about the issue. Instead paying 50 dollars to some copy paste editors people might have donated to wikipedia for hosting.

Morever since they have more than 17 thousand titles listed in amazon, I suspect they only print "books" as they get order by someone who falls to their trap. Kasaalan (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant no offense about the salary; I was just responding to your statement, which seemed to suggest that founders, admins, sysops & executives are paid. :) Print on demand is a common technique for vanity publishers. See Philip M. Parker; his "Icon Group International" does the same thing, mining Wikipedia and other usable online content to publish (see NYT article on him). It would certainly be fair and nice, but the question is, really, what we can do about it. It's not illegal, even if it unethical. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed wording. It is unethical and false advertising if you put the notice inside the book where buyers can read after they buy via amazon where they are not pre-warned of such situation. read Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter Kasaalan (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really need to read it at this point; I'm sort of familiar with it. :) It's not a licensing violation if they acknowledge their source. Neither GFDL nor CC-By-SA require that attribution be acknowledged before the material is sold or otherwise distributed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We could go with my idea of printing Wikipedia on toilet paper. The ephemeral nature of the content would make it ideal for such a consumable. The trouble is that *some* might go jihad should certain articles end up printed in this way. Seriously though Amazon should fix the reviews where they are using the wrong book reviews. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada example is a common Amazon mistake of accidentally combining two listings into the same one. It often happens with one thing about another thing (I've seen it a couple times where a soundtrack is combined with the movie), and even occasionally with completely separate things. Calling it 'fraud' is a bit harsh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do the books properly attribute the source to Wikipedia? If so, I don't think there's anything we can do here. Our material is freely licensed for commercial re-use. –xeno^talk 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Xeno. If you believe in liberty, in the freedom of information, you can't then turn around and start cherry-picking which reusers you do and don't want to disseminate your information. If people buy the book(s) and enjoy them, the world is a better place regardless of whether or not they could have got the same material for free on Wikipedia (or any other site). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is I believe in liberty, not plagiarism, I do not defy re-users, I label copy paste commercial re-distributers who commits false advertising scams in amazon via thousands of free wikipedia articles, people who buy this do not enjoy but feel scammed and deprived of their hard earned money after they realized they pay overprice [50-100 dollars, which they can buy best quality books from best publishers] for "books" which are actually "freely available wikipedia articles" in printed form, according to their own blog and forum posts.Read how victimized readers actually feel after they get the book

Actually there are things we can do. This is a violation of wikipedia license as A More Perfect Onion suggests, read Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter

Also, since there are legal obligations, they put notice in the books inside pages. Yet they do not put the same notice via Amazon where readers buy the book without knowing the fact the "books" they buy are freely available in wikipedia and are just copy paste without any actual editing. 3 people are signing the books as editors though they did not edit the articles in any way.

We cannot leave them do whatever they like while they are scamming people by misusing our hard efforts. Kasaalan (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Our job is not to act as some moral authority or protector of the naive. Can you explain how that violates our license? –xeno^talk 16:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

They sell freely available wikipedia content by misusing Creative Commons license which requires a protest by means of Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter, with false advertising and fake signatures as "editors" improperly attributing themselves as editors though they do not edit the context by any means and just copy paste, without noticing their customers before they buy with what actually they buy their "product". Kasaalan (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Our creative commons license allows for commercial re-use. If User:Moonriddengirl says there is no license violation ^{when the material is properly attributed}, then there is no license violation. False advertising is not our concern. Please raise your concerns with Amazon, they are malplaced here. –xeno^talk 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not necessarily saying that, because I haven't seen the books. :) This isn't a licensing issue if they acknowledge the sources properly within the document as distributed. (There is nothing in Creative Commons or GFDL to require notification of attribution before distribution of content.) I agree that what they're doing is appalling, but if they credit their sources and maintain the free license it isn't a licensing violation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

^{annoted –xenotalk 16:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)}

Commercial re-use with proper attribution, and selling exact duplicates of 20.000 freely available wiki articles with your own signatures without pre-noticing buyers with overpriced bills are a clear misuse of Creative Commons, and a clear scam, that is why Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter exists. You may not just sell something and warn the user afterward. If you do not agree it is a scam, just provide me how can I contact lawyers of wikipedia about the issue.

The practice of law has some different interpretations, that is why judges and courts exist. It should be considered illegal, to sell a product without noticing. That is why they put notice in the book, to prevent scam lawsuits against them. Yet it is not possible for a reader to read the notice before they buy, and after they buy they cannot return it. Why, simply because they trust in amazon as a portal. What if a company loses customers trust.

Also even if it is legal to do so, we should still warn the public about the scam in a legal way. Amazon may be forced to put such a notice on the products' pages. Kasaalan (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not at all our responsibility. User:Mike Godwin is the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel if you think there is an issue here. –xeno^talk 16:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Commercial re-use with proper attribution" is in no way a misuse of Creative Commons, and that's not why Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter exists. It exists because people copy our content without attribution. I agree with you that what they are doing is an appalling practice, but it is not a licensing violation if they give proper credit even if it is inside the book. Wikipedia's lawyer is User:MikeGodwin. As I've explained to you above, though, the Wikimedia Foundation has no standing here, as it does not own copyright to any of its content. See WP:C. If it is not illegal, how do you propose we warn the public in a legal way? Feel free to write Amazon if you wish or notify the press, but I'd focus on the known issue: people may be mislead into believing they are buying work of scholarly merit. Wikipedia is not that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moon people are selling free content without attribution via e-commerce, so that is a worse offense. It is same as, selling a replica of an ancient painting or statue for the same price as original, and sending the warning with a letter after customer purchased it or writing it under the statue or backside of the painting.

What you people don't understand is SPAM and scam always find a way to mislead people and law, that is why laws changes to prevent fraudulent acts. I remind SPAM were not considered illegal once, yet now it is considered as is, especially when it is committed in bulk fashion.

The issues are:

• Buyers are not pre-warned about copy paste issues until they buy and read the book
  • "Books" are actually freely available articles copy pasted word-by-word
  • There are notice inside books, but not in e-commerce site of amazon
• Books are over-priced even for actual top quality books by reliable publishers
• The scam committed in a bulk fashion for 20.000 titles
• They sign as editors even though they do not edit the content
  • 3 editors acts as if they edit over 17.000 titles an amount which is near impossible for them to read in such time
• It is committed via amazon's search feature via bulk search spam
• Info on amazon about books and reviews are fake or misleading
• Amazon is aware of the issue and do not care

• If it is not considered to be illegal, then we may
  • Warn media and public
  • Warn wiki community for awareness
  • Create a task force to bulk review, rate, warn and put actual wikipedia links to the wiki articles in amazon

Thanks for the link. Kasaalan (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We are a free encyclopedia. We are not a moral authority, nor a consumer watchdog. I agree that the practice is appalling, but it does not violate our license. Please, with due respect, take your soapbox elsewhere. –xeno^talk 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the same sense, you may also take your soapbox over how this is soapbox or not elsewhere. Kasaalan (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're free to notify the press yourself, free to set up a website about this, and many other things. The point here is that, yes we all agree it's a scam and so forth, but there's nothing WE as Wikipedia members can do (nor the WMF can) because they aren't actually doing anything illegal, per se. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but everyone else is right. As long as their publications note that the content came from Wikipedia and that it is licensed CC-BY-SA, then what they are doing is perfectly legal. Screaming about it here is not going to resolve anything. Resolute 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's the point:You aren't informed it's a Wikipedia copy/paste until you already have the book. ;'Hey, thanks for the money. By the way, this is a direct copy from Wikipedia; you could be reading this for free.' HalfShadow 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Still not relevant to our goal as a free encyclopedia. Speaking personally, if I was taken in by a scam like that (though I wouldn't be because I would've researched it a bit before I dropped $50 on it) I would file a chargeback with my credit card company. –xeno^talk 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? If half the book is available free online? 75%? One or two illustrations? That is the problem. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking some collaboration here since I cannot review, rank and add warning to 17.000 articles by myself, however a task force can easily accomplish such a task. Also without notifying all wikipedia community you cannot decide on behalf of users who aren't aware of such a scam which uses wikipedia content as a tool.

Those who doesn't care are free to ignore and don't contribute. Reminding me what I am free to do is another way of wasting time. Fraud and scam laws changes.

We at least draw a line where 100 percent is copied word by word and sell by a massive false advertising scam business. This is a bulk spam-scam which uses wikipedia as a tool. And it is about the credibility of wikipedia community, amazon, along with actual publishers and writers as well. "There is nothing we can do" is a petty excuse for people who don't directly admit they don't actually care much. I will contact User:MikeGodwin about what we can do in legal terms. If enough users help and contribute, I will handle media awareness myself on behalf of them. Kasaalan (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a warning to 17,000 articles? What are you on about now? –xeno^talk 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am on ground are you on a throne or something. Kasaalan (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not what are you on - what are you on about. As in what are you talking about, adding warnings to 17000 articles? Why would we? –xeno^talk 13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion all day and concur with everyone who has said that this is perfectly legal. I disagree however with those that say that this is none of our business. This is "our" content after all. This is the fruits of our work. And it is being used in a manner that we all agree is a "scam" - not actually a scam, but we feel it is contrary to the good spirt of Wikimedia. I'm sure we all agree that we want our content to be reused and republished. Yet at the same time, we all agree, I'm sure, that this is not what we had in mind.

And yes, there is something that we can do about it. We have a huge PageRank. We are the fourth biggest site on the internet. People turn to us to find out stuff. We may not have a page on Alphascript Publishing (and they do not deserve one until this is reported in verifiable sources). But we can have a page in the project namespace that mentions them by name, explains the situation and (briefly) advises consumers on their rights. Living in the EU, I have the right to simply return this book and get a full refund without explaning myself - are there similar rights for US consumers and consumers in other countries?

While I agree it is not our place to act as a Citizens Advice Bureau, it is our place to answer questions about the work we do and to advise people on their rights with repsect to activities relating to our work (particularly those we do not agree with). I would certainly be annoyed if I paid US$50 for one of these books. I'd expect Wikipedia to have a page on this subject. Most people wouldn't understand how this could happen. They might think it was Wikimedia that published these books (indeed we publish similar ones for a faction of the price). We need to answer those questions.

Hopefully, with our high PageRank, we could head off a lot of people being taken in by these guys. Those that we didn't, with our high PageRank, we could advise them while it is perfectly legal (and explain why) that if they live in the EU they can return the book and demand a full refund no-questions-asked. We could even point them towards our own book publish division (with the profits going to us) and advice them that if they really did want this book, to return that one and buy ours

We don't need to tolerate these guys. And we can do something about it. -- RA (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And what other consumer activism should we engage in? –xeno^talk 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

None. I don't advocate that we engage in any kind of consumer activism. -- RA (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You've suggested we leverage our PageRank to inform consumers about an ongoing, allegedly deceptive, sales practice. That seems like consumer activism to me (or maybe consumer advocacy, but two sides of the same coin). –xeno^talk 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If a company uses its website to inform the public about uses about 3rd party practices involving its product, that is not "consumer activism". I suggest that we inform the public that it is perfectly legal to reuse Wikipedia content in this way. That is not consumer activism. (We currently do so but from a redistributors point of view, not a "users".)

If a company uses its website to answer anticipated questions from the public regarding 3rd party practices involving its product, that is not consumer activism. I anticipate that people would ask who they should contact if they are aggrieved about buying one of these books and what can they can do about it. I suggest that we tell them they should contact the vendor and that they can return it to the vendor for a full refund. That is not consumer activism.

If a company uses its website to inform the public about 3rd party practices involving its product with the intention of influencing public behavior, that is still not consumer activism. I suggest that we could use our website to indicate republishers of Wikipedia content (including ourselves). If a person wishes to buy Wikipedia articles in book form from them, then good and we have indicated to them where they can buy Wikipedia content in book form. At the same time, some of those who do not want to pay for Wikipedia will be informed that publishers like Alphascript publish Wikipedia content. That is still not consumer activism.

Now, if you have finished muddying the waters, is there any specific aspect to my suggestion that you disagree with? -- RA (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just the fact that it still has absolutely nothing to do with our goals as a free encyclopedia and is an inappropriate leveraging of our google juice. –xeno^talk 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It has as much to do with our mission as Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Contact us, Wikipedia:Reference desk and so on. All of which are valuable pages and aid the project in their own ways. We disagree. C'est la vie. -- RA (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing new - how many photo books have been sold based on Flickr photos, how many commercial software products have been based on BSD-licensed open source code? Commercialization of Wikipedia is actually one of the project's primary goals. I agree that it would be prudent of the publishers to disclose in advertising that the books are based on Wikipedia material, but even if they did, for some people it's worth $50 to have a professionally selected and printed version of some Wikipedia articles (in particular, not everyone has Internet access). If they actually are failing to comply with the GFDL, that's a different matter and some of the many editors who are affected should send them letters as mentioned above.

I've seen OpenOffice retailing for $70 in stores at shopping malls ... relabeled on the box, with the OpenOffice attribution only given inside, much as is the case with these Alphascript people. —Soap— 15:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, these guys are dumb enough to use unattributed Wikipedia text in their advertising. This allows us to easily identify the books and is by itself noncompliance with the license (most likely, they have no competent writers themselves). Dcoetzee 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. -- RA (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would fully support if they advertise as printed version of wikipedia in amazon, it would be a fair commercial use. Though they do not, customers are getting scammed and only become aware after they buy the book, and if we ignore them amazon will surely keep ignoring the case while making a profit over unaware readers. No possibly they do not edit even a single comma to most of the books, their product do not base on wikipedia or a regular derivative work, it is just copy paste duplicates of 17.000 wiki articles along with lead sections as product descriptions, since there is no way 3 editors can edit 20.000 books or articles. And if it is all legal and smooth, we can check stock value or customer trust level of amazon after a few big newspapers make news from such a scam case. Kasaalan (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Mike Godwin said he will check the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's time someone writes an article about this publishing house? Let's see them edit THAT and publish it. --Kvasir (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Like VDM Publishing House? With redirects from Alphascript Publishing and Betascript Publishing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. I expect nothing less from my fellow wikipedians. :) --Kvasir (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Where we can discuss these matter further then. Can you guide us what we should do next. I contacted the lawyer of wikipedia. On the other hand the community should also has a right to know about such fraud and the foundation executives should definately read the case. Kasaalan (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of us already know, and most of those don't care. The remainder don't see the point in disrupting Wikipedia to express our moral outrage. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how its disruptive to call a spade a spade (or a scam a scam in this case). As with anything on wikipedia, those who care not a whit should scroll on down.--Milowent (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is always amusing how people too though to get disrupted by aggravated fraud or White-collar crime, yet they get easily disrupted when some wikipedia editors share their concerns, yet cannot find time or strength to help them. Why can't you just ignore the discussion, like you ignore the 17.000 "books" ready to be published for frauding people worldwide. Kasaalan (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like crows-sourcing is working: look at these tags: scam marketing(14) wikipedia(8) kindling(6) liar(5) rip-off(4) ripoff(3) ancient egypt(2) egyptian history(2) egyptian mythology(2) egyptology(1) [6]. Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

Oh and how about this for a book title? Rekeying: Lock, Locksmithing, Two-factor Authentication, Lock Picking, Cracking, Security Engineering, Sargon II, Egypt, Dur-Sharrukin, Phoenicia, Tigris . Clowns. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

N.B.: Most of the Alphascript titles are listed in Google Books, although they don't have content previews available [7]. If anyone wants to raise awareness of this issue, letting Google know that they have the right to show any CC-BY-SA contents without Alphascript's permission would be a useful way to start. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for Rick: I'll see your "Rekeying and Sargon II" and raise you Empowerment: Public Art, Empowerment (sculpture), Tibetan Buddhism, Empowerment (Tibetan Buddhism), Spirituality, Politics, Confidence, Decentralization, Self-ownership, Employee Engagement. Clowns. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this title of theirs was very fitting. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I added many customer reviews and complaints in Amazon.com about scam to the VDM Publishing House creating a customer reviews section, but it got reverted for non-RS, attack etc. concerns VDM Publishing article revert for creation of customer reviews section with amazon.com review links. Kasaalan (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Trademark infringement discussion

The issue here is not copyright infringement, it's trademark infringement, and a false and deceptive trade practice. With respect to trademark, it is specifically, reverse confusion. If I go to a store and buy a dozen pairs of Reeboks, and then I create an "Alphashoe" logo, slap it on a dozen shoeboxes, put those shoes in the boxes, and sell them under my label, some jurisdictions will hold that I am committing an actionable violation of Reebok's trademark rights (not copyright) by falsely representing their product as the result of my labor. Whether to pursue a legal remedy is another matter, but there certainly are theories under which this is actionable. To the extent that these books are being sold (or offered for sale, as they clearly are) in the United States, it can't hurt to bring this to the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, which specifically pursues deceptive trade practices. bd2412 T 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a specious analogy. It would only work if Reebok was "the free shoe that anyone can resize to their feet." The FTC isn't going to do squat. However, Amazon has buyer reviews and feedback for all their products. They also have a very progressive returns policy. Over time this problem will likely solve itself as disgruntled customers demand their money back and leave negative feedback. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell you have to buy the "book" to actually evaulate it. Also not sure about the return policy of Amazon, since many purchasers use to resale their Alphascript products on cheaper price in amazon themselves. If they could have return the product they wouldn't sell them 2nd hand Kasaalan (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's only trademark infringement if you market your own work as the work of another, not the other way round. You'd have to steal Reebok's trade marks and put them on your own cheap Alphashoe products. I don't think Reebok would complain if you bought their shoes and sold them on at a higher price (this is the whole point of retail). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reebok would definitely sue the company billions if they would draw 10.000s of their products from the market and replace their logo without any modification on the shoes to sell them overpriced and the company would be out of business. Kasaalan (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed project namespace page

I've sand-boxed a proposed project page to address the questions raised by this issue. I've taken xeno's concerns regarding "consumer activism" into account and not advised any one that they may be able to return these books for a full-refund.

I know that the questions it answers are addressed elsewhere but I don't think they are addressed from the perspective of Joe Public. If there are no serious objections, I'll move it into the project namespace. The page is here. -- RA (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

consumer activism is good and we also add already accomplished consumer activism over internet in wiki.

Great work and thanks. We cannot just sit and wait for the foundation to do something before we do. Top priority should be developing the VDM Publishing article and the project page, before we notify foundation executives and media. I have created a sandbox myself in User talk:Kasaalan/Publisher with links to previous discussions about Alphascript, wiki articles that uses Alphascript as reference, wikilinks to related concepts, consumer complaints. I also added signatures of users who contributed and approached beneficially to the concerns we raised in discussion. Anyone who likes to remove his signature may free to do so. Kasaalan (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The first reference in Action potential is a book that republished Action potential? And Action potential a Featured Article? (Update: I've removed the ref from the action potential article and left a note on the talk.) -- RA (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They are a company founded in late 2009 and still causes much trouble. Read Wikipedia articles that uses or previously used Alphascript Publishing as a reference for other previous discussions that includes Alphascript references in wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The other danger is VDM also publishes academics' thesis if they convince them to sign their terms. Was the source republishing of wiki article or a thesis. So always double check before removing any references about whether they are wikipedia article or a thesis, if it is VDM and not Alphascript. All Alphascript titles are wiki articles, therefore no RS. Generally a quick way to check is searching product description in wikipedia. Read: webcitation copy and Writer Beware Blog Official Blog of Writer Beware Kasaalan (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposed projectspace page seems to sidestep the concerns I raised with respect to soapboxing/consumer activism/advocacy and I see no issues with it being moved into WP space. –xeno^talk 13:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, xeno. I've moved the page from my sandbox to Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form. -- RA (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese"

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese" Svick (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a fruitless discussion on Talk:Bruce Lee which mainly evolves around the question whether man could be categorized as a Chinese or not. The single-purpose account Undefeatedcooler believes yes, but I would like to see evidence that he held Chinese citizenship which he most probably did not (at least, no evidence to that effect has yet surfaced). Now I looked up what the WP guidelines say, but unfortunately they are somewhat contrary:

• Categorization by nationality and occupation
• Categorization by Race

So "people are usually categorized by their nationality", but on the other hand "a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic". So what are we going to do? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Was he born in China? If he was, his nationality is Chinese. (Domicility (basically where you live) has nothing to do with nationality.)
• If he subsequently gained citizenship of any country you can mention he became a suchandsuch citizen in later life/year or adopted suchandsuch citizenship.
• If he was American or French or whatever else and of Chinese extraction or Chinese descent having Chinese parents/ancestry, you could say Chinese American or whatever. –Whitehorse1 18:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He was born in San Francisco, USA, raised in Hongkong, returned to the US-American West coast for his university studies, and made his career as a martial arts artist in Hongkong and the USA. The article also says that he is Chinese American (that is US American citizen of Chinese ancestry), but what about the categories now? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the choices between please? E.g. Is it between "Chinese", "American", and "Chinese American"? Additionally, does "American television actors" (or "Hong Kong film actors") mean an actor from anywhere who stars in American television shows (or Hong Kong movies), or just an American person who's an actor in television shows? –Whitehorse1 20:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is over these Chinese-related categories (see bottom). I am far from a specialist in categorization of actors, but Hongkong actor seems ok for me, since he definitely was one. But to categorize him as fully as Chinese as China mainland actors with PrCh citizenship appears to me stretching things and categories. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, is this dispute still going? Did anyone ever check what any of his biographies say after the last time I commented? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, I was under the impression that he was a martial artist and actor, neither a sportsman nor a philosopher. Some sources for those quotes would be good. Britannica lists him as "U.S. film actor". Most other sources don't get obsessively bogged-down in trying to label him, and just present the verifiable facts. Wikipedia stands out like a childish sore thumb by comparison. [8] OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They're the editor-assigned categories not quotes, Orangedog. Incidentally, your link reads "this entry is from Wikipedia" at the bottom. Let's hope things can change from being bogged-down and resolved amicably. –Whitehorse1 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So when I asked what a published biography of Bruce Lee says, you didn't actually check, but just put what Wikipedia editors said? Also, if you look closely, you will see that the link is to an aggregated collection of biographies from various sources, including the one we have here. My point was that the Wikipedia one (the one at the bottom) is the only one that starts excessively classifying him in the first sentence. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

They contradict. That says he's a "Chinese American sportspe[rson]", but a "Chinese philosophe[r]" and in category "20th-century Chinese people".

You've said his nationality is "American" (by virtue of being born in SF, USA; where he lived the first 3 months of his life), which we can refer to as "Chinese American" recognizing he is of Chinese extraction/ancestry.

You've further said he was raised in Hong Kong, where he lived from the age of three months to 3 years 11 months under Japanese occupation according to the article. The Japanese aspect does not seem to factor into the dispute. Thereafter, he grew up in Hong Kong until age 18 when he moved back to the USA.

As regards membership of the category "Chinese Jeet Kune Do practitioners", I'm not sure that's ideal in this case. This is because he (please correct me if I'm wrong) 'invented' Jeet Kune Do. We normally select the single most relevant category from each subject-area hierarchy. Toplevel categories are generally used, unless a child category exists that can be used instead. You may like to consider placing him in a parent category since, as inventor he is uniquely distinct from somebody that is merely 'one of the French practitioners' or 'one of the Ethiopian practitioners'. Perhaps that is a suitable compromise? As for being a "Chinese Wing Chun practitione[r]", I am unsure whether Chinese Wing Chun refers to a specific martial art/martial art style, or to a Chinese person who practices 'Wing Chun'.

The final paragraph of the Categorization guideline also bears some relevance. An alternative to using a subcat of Philosophers by nationality may be more suitable. Perhaps a Philosophers by tradition subcat based on what tradition reliable sources identify him as, or Philosophers by field subcat in the same way, or the Philosophers by century subcat, 20th-century philosophers? –Whitehorse1 21:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I may note though that the dispute evolves much less around the substantives, but the adjective "Chinese" as you will quickly realize once the flock from Talk:Bruce Lee swarms over here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true the dispute has focused on whether or not to have the wording "Chinese". There were nuances in my comment. When reading the talkpage I saw lots of speculating over what documents he would have had, what rights he was entitled to, whether he claimed those or not, how the details varied at different historic points, etc. It wasn't always clear what was being said, but there was certainly a lot being said. What those taking part have concentrated on, is trying to choose one way or the other if categories saying Chinese--noun should be included or excluded. I am suggesting, consider a third way.

It looks like you've general agreement on several things, such as the lead explaining he was Chinese American, the German ancestry on his mother's side being peripheral enough to not need mentioning in categories or the lead, his birthplace, that he was a Hong Kong actor, etc. Using alternative categories as I described above might be something you'd like to consider.

It seems to me no extra information is added with, say, the philosophers by nationality:Chinese subcategory over subcategorizing by philosophy tradition, field or (20th) century instead. That's because, the lead plus categories already point out he's an American writer, that specifically he's Chinese American, and that he was a Hong Kong film actor; the lead actually wikilinks to the Hong Kong people article. Undeniably, Hong Kong is geographically in China. It's crystal clear from the article he was Chinese American, plus a Hong Kong actor; it recognizes the multiple strands to his background, the culture and heritage that shaped him; when one among many categories instead concerns field or era, no parts of that identity are being denied. –Whitehorse1 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There was one user (Gun Powder Ma) disagreed and disliked the contents on Talk:Bruce Lee.

There were plenty of explanations to this dispute by other editors as well, see Talk:Bruce Lee.

Gun Powder Ma couldn't comprehend the points and never read and participated in any of the previous discussions.

His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. It's better to avoid speculating about other's motivations, and name-calling, even if you've made a deduction you really believe in. It makes people defensive. When that happens it can make everyone less likely to agree on things. Perhaps you can see how you feel about the suggestions above, Undefeatedcooler. –Whitehorse1 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

March is Women's History Month in the United States

I would like to highlight that March is Women's History Month in the United States (and maybe other places, too.) And March 8, is International Women's Day.

National Women's History Project's 2010 Theme is "Writing Women Back into History" and I think that is a good reminder that Wikipedia English has quite a few gaps in our coverage of topics including some gaps in our coverage of women's activity in military history. I encourage everyone to look for one or two biographies about women to create or expand this month.

• Women Airforce Service Pilots--A number of these women are notable because of there achievements in the area of aviation and service in WWII. I found a large amount of material quickly available on Ann Baumgartner and Mildred "Micky" Axton, and I suspect there are others WASPs waiting for an article. They all are to receive a Congressional Gold Medal on March 10, 2010. *The Library of Congress Veterans History Project may have some leads, too. *Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps and Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service are other examples, and there are many more.

• Women and Social Movements in the United States is a resource about U.S. women's history.

• Biographies of women..

And there is always the task of getting Florence Nightingale to FA ;-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 07:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this, it's a really lovely idea. I blogged about it and will find a few biographies to work on! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 08:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And here's a related analysis from user:reagle -- [9] -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

When doing research for writing articles for United States Women's History Month, I found this list of potential articles.

• List of early women elected to United States state legislatures. I'm working on the ones of Kentucky and New York now. Anyone that wants to help can by checking to see which ones are missing from Wikipedia and adding them. I'm starting a list. User:FloNight/List of the first United States female state legislators FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tag for extensive used of the same source

Is there a tag which could be added to an article which concerns the extensive use of the same source? I came across searching one to use on the newly created article Exome Sequencing (For example, Sarah B Ng et al. is cited 12 times). -RobertMel (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a problem in and of itself. If that's the only source and/or a primary source, there are templates for that. And if it's WP:REFSPAM, there are suggestions for dealing with it. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm..., thanks for the reply. To clarify things, the article I gave as an example has 5 references, the first one is cited 12 times, the second is cited 10 times the third 6 times, the forth 9 times and the last 3 times. They're all scientific papers presenting results, so we can say they're primary sources, on the other hand, the intro of scientific papers make generally a review of the subject, so I suppose they can be used as secondary source if used for the review on the subject. The tag you proposed me, suggest some spamming intent, which here there does not seem to be one, unless the editor, who's user name starts with sarah, is the same Sarah who was cited 22 times in the article. In this particular case, primary sources are used, which leave the editor do the syntesis of the material rather than a synthesis already made by a secondary or tertiary source. What tags are appropriate here? -RobertMel (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Especially since the page is new, why don't you just use a note about your concern on either the article's talk page or the editor(s) talk page? Maurreen (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

{{onesource}} is what you seek. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, if I misinterpreted this when I first read it, it might be {{primarysources}}? Are either of these what you needed? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the second fits perfectly. -RobertMel (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

However, please note Maurreen's comment and don't JUST put down a tag (something that far too many editors do). Also leave a comment on the article Talk page to explain your concern and hopefully start a conversation with previous editors. Tags aren't the end of a response to a problem, they're the beginning. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have already done this! -DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I will work on this article. Thanks everyone for the reply. -RobertMel (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's wrong with an article correctly cited to a range of different peer-reviewed sources? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They're all primary sources. -RobertMel (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since many cite other papers (including other references in the article), they are secondary sources. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC citations

(I apologise if such a thing exists; I can't find it.) I come across citations to BBC web-pages like this all the time, as, I'm sure, many Wikipedians do. However, I'm never quite sure how to reference them. So first, it'd like to get that straight - whether the BBC is the author, or publisher, or even work, whether the word "website" should be be put in somewhere. Secondly, a template to make this easier would be particularly useful. To follow through on the above example, {{cite BBC |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7202413.stm |title= Severn barrage details unveiled |date= 22 January 2008 |accessdate=5 March 2010}}. The work, author, publisher would be filled in automatically. Now, I'm sure, there is the disadvantage of differing the apparent page and the real one, but it's outweighed by the fact we'd get more references, more informatively. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As if to prove my point, the BBC website is referenced three or more different ways in BAE Systems, a Featured Article. Of course, I do understand that the primary aim has to be able to make sense of the reference, which in each case we can, but this is an improvement.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For a BBC news story, use {{cite news}}. The author is usually blank (as there is usually no byline), work is "BBC News", and the publisher is "BBC", but that's not really worth noting as it is obvious. Why complicate matters by introducing a new template? Fences&Windows 15:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I just meant a little one. In any case, you've addressed how it might be referenced. I'll make a user page one and subs't it. That way, I'll standardise my contributions. Apparently, MediaWiki will not allow that to happen, which is a pain. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Banks

Why Henry Banks is not in the 1950 Drivers Championship final standings? Henry Banks was in 1950 Indianapolis 500-competition (position 25). 82.116.243.192 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Find a source and add him then. It's very easy. :) OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Living person task force IRC meeting

Hi everyone,

The Living Persons task force is having a meeting on IRC in about 4 hours, in the channel #wikimedia-strategy ^connect on the server freenode. If you need help accessing this channel, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing IRC. The time of the meeting is 4:00 UTC on Monday, 8 March. The meeting will be publicly logged (see past chats) and will generally follow the structure laid out at the agendas page. strategy:Task force/Living people has more information if you interested.

I hope to see you there.

Yours sincerely, NW (Talk) 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles to edit?

Hi, I know a real person runs SuggestBot and they have other stuff to do besides working on Wikipedia, but my username has been up there for about 4 weeks now and there's still no suggestions, even though it says on the page 'you'll get a reply within a week and probably sooner'. Why is this? When I do get my suggestions, where do they go?

Also, is there any articles that need spelling changes and cleanups? If so can anybody recommend some or show me where the list is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevymontecarlo (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Try going to Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories and looking at the choices there. The subcategory called Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit may be of particular interest based on your mention of spelling changes. --RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm that real person, and we're working on semi-automating its running. I'm also handing it off to a PhD student who has energy for making it run better (and is also looking at making it run on multiple instances of Wikipedia). Sorry you've had to wait; they'll show up on your talk page "soon". -- 128.84.103.49 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Temporary Autoblocking of vandalism only IP addresses

The RFC is progressing here ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

An example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia

Here is the current lead paragraph of the article antigen:

An antigen (from antibody generator) originally defined as any molecule that binds specifically to an antibody, the term now also refers to any molecule or molecular fragment that can be bound by a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and presented to a T-cell receptor. "Self" antigens are usually tolerated by the immune system; whereas "Non-self" antigens are identified as intruders and attacked by the immune system. Autoimmune disorders arise from the immune system reacting to its own antigens.

And here is the definition from the MedlinePlus website of the National Institutes of Health:

"An antigen is any substance that causes your immune system to produce antibodies against it. An antigen may be a foreign substance from the environment such as chemicals, bacteria, viruses, or pollen. An antigen may also be formed within the body, as with bacterial toxins or tissue cells."

How do we get people to write like the latter definition (albeit without the word "your" to match our style) and not like what we have now? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We hire professional writers and professional editors, and prevent the general population from meddling with articles. That would completely destroy wikipedia, tossing the baby out with the bathwater, but it would accomplish what you seek - mostly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Its much easier than that - You do it! Roger (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have only a basic knowledge of biology and medicine, and I have never seen or edited the antigen article, but I don't have much difficulty reading it. It's true that it doesn't have a "sixth-grade" reading level like the medline paragraph, but that's not a problem. It's reasonable to expect that a reader will take some time to read an article carefully; there's no reason to write articles for a 5-second glance.

When I looked at our antigen article, I saw it distinguishes between antigens and immunogens; it looks like the medline article is just discussing immunogens. So the medline paragraph is actually being inaccurate in the interest of being simple; that's exactly what we want to avoid here. Our goal is to write articles, not just to give people superficial summaries like the medline one.

My real advice is: if you find an article that needs improvement, edit it! If you don't feel comfortable editing it, leave a note on the article's talk page asking for someone knowledgeable about the subject to help you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

...you could also note the issue, with a {{confusing}}, or {{expert}} tag. But fixing it would be best.  Chzz  ►  23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to sound flippant. My concern is that I even though I am among the best-educated 4% in one of the world's wealthiest countries, I couldn't understand the paragraph I excerpted. I didn't really know what an antibody was and certainly didn't know the definition of "T-cell receptor" or "major histocompatibility complex." You might point out that "antibody" and "major histocompatibility complex" are wikilinked, but the articles linked to may be even harder to understand, forcing people to click on yet another link to understand them, and so on until you're in a wild goose chase just trying to understand a single sentence.

This has been a concern of mine for a long time. Even though I consider myself to be a fairly well-educated person, I can't understand the vast majority of "hard science" articles on Wikipedia. I'd love to improve them myself but without the necessary background knowledge of the subject matter I'm afraid I would introduce inaccuracies.

I have long been of the belief that it needs to made clearer that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information for people who don't know it already and that there's no need to cram all of the detail professional-level readers would need into an article when we have unlimited space to put such detail on what could be called subsidiary pages (as in "Main article: Whatever"). A couple of years ago I suggested that the Good Article criteria include a line that the article must be written so the "least-knowledgeable likely reader" would be able to understand it, or at least the enough to know what the article's subject is exactly. I'd love to be part of a Wikiproject that matches people with writing expertise (I have some) with people with scientific knowledge to improve the readability of science articles. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a common problem, although not the worst of our problems.

Maybe you could volunteer at a science wikiproject? Maurreen (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal auto display a unreferenced template for soccer squad templates

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#New_proposed_major_change_to_Football_squad_system Gnevin (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

evolution of info-boxes

I am doing some research into the evolution of information transfer systems and was hoping you might be able to help me. Could you tell me where or how I can get statistics on

1) when info-boxes first appeared in wikipedia and how quickly they spread to their current levels, both in terms of total numbers and also in terms of unique catogories 2) what information was in those early boxes and how this has changed 3) how successful are info-boxes compared to free text in getting clicked when the same link is available in both the box and the text?

Please let me know if you want to know more about my research or if you have any questions about the kind of statistics I am looking for. Any help would be appreciated! Lasgomas (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Can anybody translate the name of the ship in File:Cuxhaven kry Schiff 01 (RaBoe).jpg to make it possible to find her IMO number? --Stunteltje (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tulos Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unwelcoming error page for anonymous editors

When an anonymous editor tries to edit a non-existent page (e.g. [10]), it says "Unauthorized" for the title. I don't think it used to say that. Either way, can we think of ideas to improve that page to be more welcoming, and encourage people to sign up for an account? Note that I am aware that anons can not create pages, and I am not suggesting changing that policy, just the UI. Superm401 - Talk 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a more welcoming screen there makes a great deal of sense; 'unauthorized' is pretty harsh. It presents an opportunity to encourage new users to sign up, and to point them toward good practice - WP:FIRST perhaps. I hope this can be considered.  Chzz  ►  23:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The interface message in question is MediaWiki:Nocreatetext. Svick (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the body text, but where does "Unauthorized" come from? Superm401 - Talk 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it's MediaWiki:Badaccess. Svick (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a generic message. So it might be necessary to create a separate message for this particular situation (anonymous user trying to create page). This would require changes to MediaWiki. Superm401 - Talk 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre image behavior

File:Jews.jpg displays five people if its size is 245px and four at any other size:

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what's going on with this image?Prezbo (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It displays 4 for me both times. Aiken ♫ 02:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I accidentally made them the same size.Prezbo (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it looks like you changed the size of the second one?Prezbo (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this image was changed on March 6 to add a fifth portrait, then reverted to the four-portrait version on March 10. Probably the 245px version was a stale thumbnail that has now been regenerated. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I was testing in preview and forgot to change it back. It's probably a caching issue. Aiken ♫ 14:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I guess this is not that interesting but it just seemed very strange to me.Prezbo (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation or mediation?

Would somebody give me the nutshell version of the difference between formal mediation and the mediation cabal? Which is more likely to get action sooner? Maurreen (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, Critical Point of View" conference in Amsterdam

Has anyone hear about this conference taking place in Amsterdam on March 26-27? Is anyone going? I'll be there in case anyone wants to meet up :) JACOPLANE • 2010-03-12 14:52

Please feel free to send me elsewhere

if that's the best reply to my issue.
On Feb 14, 2006 I posted a picture in the Fielding Yost article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fielding_Yost-1902.jpg Now, 4 years later, in somewhat of a coincidence (if there is such a thing) I ended up back at the shot and discovered that I am no longer given credit for posting it. You can find me in the article's history and probably figure out that it was that picture, but . ..... is this how it is supposed to work/ i have posted many pictures on wikipedia and I figure if nothing else, I get that credit for doing it. The picture was in the public domain, but still it was from my collection and if that is what is going to occur to any PD pic I post then I am going to pout and sulk a lot. Any thoughts? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You uploaded that image to Wikipedia and it was then reuploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so that other Wikimedia projects can easily use that file too. The original file was then deleted. (See the log.) So now, we use a file that was uploaded by someone else than you and because you don't own copyright to that image, Wikipedia isn't required to give you any credit. If you want to avoid this the next time, upload PD files directly to Commons. Svick (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps I shall do that, upload to Commons, more likely I'll stop uploading this sort of material. Carptrash (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Old revisions

I just stumbled over this amusing talk page item. Seems everyone was a newbie once. The history of that talkpage is incomplete, and nost:Talk:Sanity has no history. Has anybody ideas where the missing revisions might be found? Paradoctor (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Many early revisions of pages have unfortunately been lost, for various reasons. You might like to ask User:Graham87, who I have seen importing various old revisions of pages, about it. Aiken ♫ 14:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do that, thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Where's the stub count?

Hi, I hope this is the most adequate place to ask this. Where can I find the total WP stub article count? I believe Special:Statistics used to have a "Stubs" count that differentiated actual articles from stubs and other pages. But it's not clear to me where stubs actually are in the count now. Whether they're on the "Pages" count now, or the "Content" count (which would be kinda worrisome), shouldn't there be an independent count to highlight their potential as "Content" articles? Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The closest you'll get is Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Statistics, according to which there are just under 1.5 million stubs. The trouble is that, as you can see, the total articles figure given there is 2.6 million - when there are really 3.2 million articles. The shortfall of 600,000 is all articles that have not yet been tagged for any WikiProject. Then there are 379,000 unassessed articles. In total, then, about a million articles have no assessment (one in three) and the assessments that have been given may be outdated. Stubs may have grown, but not had the stub rating removed. Realistically, I think we can only say with any sort of certainty that there are 1 to 2 million stubs. Dinosaur Tantrum (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What?!? I thought the 3.2 million article count was only for legitimate (i.e. non-stub) articles! And now you're telling me that most of these 3 million articles could be stubs? I cannot emphasize how depressing that is to me! :( Kreachure (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikistress

While m:wikistress is entertaining, the phenomenon is real. Any resources relating to serious investigations of it? Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would check Google Scholar to see if any academic studies have been done on the topic. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrgh, I use it and Scirus all the time, and still have to be reminded. At least give me some fish protein, I really deserve it.

Dementia aside, I am hoping for sources and cases like Grutness' other Wikipedians might recall. Paradoctor (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it is time for the community as a whole to do some original research into this area? Carptrash (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm not talking about article content. Otherwise we'd have to nuke WP:GROWTH, and I don't think anybody in here wants that. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is that right place to ask…

I tried to make an account made purely out of numbers, and it didn't let me do so. Is there a specific reason to not be able to? Would I be able to make a random username and get a username change, so someone else can (possibly) deem it acceptable? If not, thank you anyway. -99.255.188.158 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)