Wikipedia:Village pump (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).

Start a new discussion in the miscellaneous section

Policy

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

« Archives, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

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.

Without disturbing images, please.

Note: Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) is current as of 2004 November 19, but has no pictures, captions are still retained. Since so many people asked for it and since it's not too difficult to replace pics with Image:null.png Pedant 02:00, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Discussion moved from the reference desk. func(talk) 05:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib scandal

I would like a version of the page on the Abu Ghraib scandal without the disturbing images. That way, I (and others) could get the information without having to see more than we want to. There are many minors who use this site; shouldn't there be an appropriate version for them?

What about a separate, linked article for the images? That way it can be linked from the main article in a prominent way, but there can be a warning so that people will know what to expect. I do think that it's appropriate to be considerate of our younger readers, as long as the information is retained. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could use a browser that allows switching off images. Opera has a very easy quick-toggle for this but Mozilla/Firefox and Internet Explorer let you do this in the preferences too. --fvw 21:58, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

You could also save the entire page to your computer and delete the images --Cvaneg 22:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is not so easily solved. (In order to do either of those things, it would be necessary to first look at the images in order to determine that I wanted to remove them.) I agree that the information is important, but at the moment the text of the article is practically inaccessible to anyone who has a hard time looking at those images. I'm not so much concerned for myself as for young people who may be trying to access this information. Sure, there is a warning at the top of the page, which is helpful, but if you read the warning and decide you don't want to contine, there is no way to get the information. Perhaps there could be a text-only sub-page? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could go to the page, read the warning, then turn off the images in your browser and reload. Or yuo could could just look at the source code of the page. (in IE it's view--> source,Similar in netscape, and firefox, i don't know about other browsers but i expect it would be similar) The text would be there after the initial HTML header stuff, but the images would not be visible.Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 14:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or you could start to edit the page. 212.159.101.179 20:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The images are the story. Mintguy (T) 05:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aranel has something of a point. What about a disclaimer, that linked to a subpage? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to go this far, we might as well start a new system. Say there is a basic image in place of the actual images as a placeholder. People could read the disclaimer and click a different link within the disclaimer for the full article (i.e. offensive pictures and/or profanities included). This should apply to language, as well. For example, the article entitled Fuck. Suprisingly, I do believe this article deserves its place on Wikipedia; however, I doubt parents would appreciate their children seeing it. In a case such as that, we may have to use a page with only a disclaimer and then a "go forward" link to the article. I don't know how much support this would get, but if we are going to do this on principle to a single article, we might as well propose it as Wikipolicy. Skyler 1534 15:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm as a parent i can say I certainly do want my teenage children to see the images. Mintguy is right the images are the story. Yes they are disturbing and disgusting, because the behaviour is distubing and disgusting, becasue IMO war is disturbing and disguisting, and i want my children to grow up knowing that this is what war is about. For smaller children i can't see a problem becasue they probably wouldn't look at the article anyway, and should be supervised by their parents whilst online anyway. As for Fuck. it's an entirely different sort of article. Harmless, well written and very interesting. Someone who objected to profanities would consider the page title itself objectionable and so certainly wouldn't visit the page. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 15:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are too many pictures, imo - perhaps some could be taken out and placed in an image gallery. violet/riga (t) 18:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be moved to the Village pump? func(talk) 16:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. --Edcolins 21:22, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why do the disturbing photos (and there are many of them) have to be on the main page? A number of articles already have links you can click on to see further images. Cat and Adolf Hitler spring to mind. Nothing wrong in doing something similar here, albeit for a different purpose. jguk 20:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All the computers in my house are used by kids, and all of them read wikipedia, but we certainly don't allow minors access to the internet without supervision. There is nothing that a child old enough to access wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to see if they are looking for it, and nothing that they will stumble across by accident, usually. If the kids are looking up information about the Abu Ghraib scandal then they are expecting this sort of thing. I sure hope most adults don't let their kids read the internet unsupervised though, that would be inappropriate even for the very bright kids I know.Pedant 02:00, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Hi I'm only 13!

Hi I'm Lyndsey Perry and I'm only 13!

Hello, Lyndsey. It is somewhat unusual for a 13 year old to be so enthusiastic about their age. Can we help you? func(talk) 01:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

¡Hello, oh Lyndsey Perry!

¿How fare you?

I understand your enthusiasm; but unfortunately however, it is not wise to reveal so much about yourself on the Internet. Although 99% of all people on the Internet are good, that bad 1% does nothing else than look for people like you. You must be very careful.

I hate to sound preachy. I myself advocate for the rights of children as everyone here can attest to their chagrin -- most of the people here wish I would not be so vocal -- but this is very serious. I know that if I continue to preach, you will tune me out, so I shall stop here, with one least warning:

Never ever meet anyone from Cyberspace in Meatspace or give anyone any information which one could possibly use for finding you.

Regards, Ŭalabio 02:04, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Oh, really? You just gave away the fact that you speak English - it's now 6 times easier to find you. Don't be paranoid, there is nothing wrong with saying you are 13-year old. Paranoid 13:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, you might want to know that there are at least two other comparably young and very active Wikipedians, User:Revolutionary and Ilyanep. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Many more, actually. See m:Wikipedians by age. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:33, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Lyndsey Perry !! Welcome to Wikipedia.Us young people should stick together huh? ( to others -depends on what you define as young! I'm entitled to my delusions.)But don't ask my age please. Have fun editing at wiki.--Jondel 07:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey there, welcome. Us young 'uns ought to form a group or clan...accepting only under-18 Wikipedians. --Etaonish 21:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Possible controversy about the religion of Abraham Lincoln.

I just made some changes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations about Lincoln being called a Christian, and even a devout one. Considering this is probably an all kinds of controversial sort of change, I want to run this by whoever is in charge here before my IP gets banned and such. :(

I had done some Google searching about the religious beliefs about Lincoln earlier today, and found the general consenus is he believed in God, but likely in a Deist sense, and not a Christian. I then found this Wikipedia article calling him a devout Christian, yet linking at the bottom to a web page that he was a Deist. This is logically inconsistent. Thus I deleted the part about Lincoln being a devout Christian, and changed his religion to be uncertain, possibly Deist. When the historical facts are unclear, then calling Lincoln a "devout Christian" is not intellectually honest.

My intent was not to maliciously deface Wikipedia, but just to correct something that seemed inaccurate. Given this is a possible inflammatory change, I'd like whoever the Powers That Be are here to review it, and make a decision whether my change was reasonable. (unsigned)

My understanding matches yours. I think cautious wordings like "those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to him" (Second Inaugural Address) indicate a man delicately balanced on the edge of belief. However, for a sane statement of the contrary case, made sanely if unconvincingly, see [1]. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:48, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I just created a user account here as "Rfgdxm" should any of the Powers That Be consider this so highly controversial a change they want to contact me directly. It just seems to me that where there is doubt about a Lincoln's religious beliefs, calling him a "devout Christian" just ain't right.

--Rfgdxm (talk) 22:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reading that link to http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02004.htm posted above, I must concede that some of the quotes cited made by Lincoln late in his presidency are suggestive that near the end of his life Lincoln may have moved in the direction of Christianity. However, they could also be explained by Lincoln trying to appeal to a mostly Christian nation. In any case, I merely am proposing the change should just be to say that Lincoln's religious beliefs are uncertain, and that he just possibly was a Deist. This seems consistent with the notion Wikipedia articles should be written from a NPOV. For the record, I am an agnostic almost to the point of atheism. As such I have no bias to want to characterize Lincoln as a Deist instead of a Christian. Both firmly believe in god; they merely have a different notion of the nature of god.

--Rfgdxm | Talk 06:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should be careful, however, as any statement on the matter might be seen as bordering on "original research", which Wikipedia isn't suppose to do. Someone recently tried to place Lincoln's name onto the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, citing a book... which hasn't even been published yet. (Of course, it doesn't really matter. 53% of Americans seem to think Bush is a moral leader rather than the purest form of evil the world has ever known, and I'll bet these same 53% of ignorant Americans are going to insist that Lincoln was of whatever religious persuasion they want to believe.) --68.163.12.14 02:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But what statement based on "original research" am I suggesting being added? The clear majority of credible historians are comfortable with the notion of Lincoln being a Deist. Easy to find this with a simple Google search. In fact, it is much later historians, many who appear revisionist, who are trying to pigeonhole Lincoln as being a "devout Christian." And besides, I merely argue for Wikipedia to state the religious beliefs of Lincoln are "uncertain". There are some quotes Lincoln made late in his life that make me wonder if he was drifting in the direction of Christianity. My best guess is that these were uttered by him to bolster support of the Christian majority of people in the US during a bloody civil war. However, in the interest of neutrality I consider it reasonable to just say his religious beliefs were uncertain, and let the reader make up their own mind.

And, Lincoln gay? A quick Google search shows that there has been recent speculation about this. However, the evidence looks mighty flimsy. In particular, there seems to have been no such suggestions when Lincoln was alive. And, his predecessor James Buchanan had lots of people at the time suggest that he was gay. It's gonna take some serious proof before I believe Lincoln was gay.

--Rfgdxm | Talk 04:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jumping

Sometimes, Whenever I visit Wikipedia's main page and click the link that says Create an account or log in, it suddenly jumps from the upper right corner of the webpage to the left. Why does it do that? Thanks, --Chris 08:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a known bug. See Mediazilla:25. It seems to only affect certain browsers, so if you have something other than Internet Explorer, such as firefox, you might find the problem goes away. Angela . 14:15, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Radio Station Template

At a template called Template:Radio stations by state, I want to know if anyone can modify it so that the following does not happen:

When I went to List of radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state), I put the template on and it automatically added Category:Georgia, which is a dis-ambiguation category, to the template. I can't fix the category because it is automatically put in with the template. 66.245.3.195 17:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can edit the Template, but the problem is you might have to update all the pages with the template on them, that should be in Category:Georgia... JesseW 10:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE

I've been writting this article Lesch-Nyhan syndrome (in a word document) for a few days now. i've just copied it to wikipedia and when i submitted it the format was all wonky, please help. p.s. if anyone can find me a pic to add that would be great! --Larsie 23:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fixed a couple paragraphs. If you start a paragraph with a space, it goes all on the same line in a fixed-width format. See Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Hope this helps. pstudier 23:50, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

I want My Word back

I miss the bbc radio broadcast of "MY WORD" are there any sites which still audio stream the program? Are there any radio re-plays in the U.S. (via NPR)? Were can I download or buy editions?

[email protected]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:My_Word%21"

Downtown Chicago

If someone needs a pic of a place in downtown Chicago, I might be able to get one (if it's within walking distance of where I am staying), so let me know. Dori | Talk 02:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I assume you're aware of Wikipedia:Requested images and related pages... JesseW 04:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes and ...? Dori | Talk 01:46, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Just, in case you wern't, it would be another good place to mention this. No offence meant. JesseW 10:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The VP is usually more high traffic. I also posted under Talk:Chicago, Illinois#Pictures. Oh, well, I'm back at home now, but I did take quite a few pictures, and I'll start uploading some soon. Dori | Talk 13:53, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges joins Wikipedia

Another wikipedian suggested I log in and introduce myself. I have already posted comments and an update in the areas of Derrida, Dijkstra and Kant.

I am a software developer and author of the Apress book Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler. My interests encompass software development including compiler development, philosophy, art, etcetera.

My home page is http://members.screenz.com/edNilges.

I am very interested in the Wikipedian ethos and approach.

However, I view NPOV as sometimes misinterpreted to mean LCD.

210.21.221.178 01:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Trumpet roll. The way this came out really sucks because it reads like "big deal, and who is Edward (Gee?) Nilges?". My kid is probably dying of embarassment.

Anyway, the damage is done. I shall in future try to adhere to all customs and rules. Four tildes to "stamp" the document? Gee, we're not in Kansas anymore are we Toto. We are in a land of gnomic utterance.

But one can be equally gnomic. LCD doesn't mean liquid crystal diode. It means Least Common Denominator.

Grin. It's good to see someone with a sense of humor about themselves. You might look at the page: Wikipedia:New_user_log. ;-) Glad you've joined wikipedia. JesseW 10:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism of Welcome, newcomers

Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers seems to have become a target of repeated anonymous vandalism. Unfortunately, some vandalised revisions have been online for hours. That page is a very important part of the project and should receive more attention. Please consider putting it on your watchlist to avoid persistence of any future vandalism. Thanks. Kosebamse 15:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added to my watch list, I'll keep an eye on it when I'm online. This kind of slightly more subtle, non-blanking vandalism would be a lot easier to catch with some more advanced watchlist features though (direct link to last diff, link to diff of current to article at last time the article was viewed). --fvw 16:47, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
- It would also be useful if there was a sort of "super watchlist" of items on your watchlist which have been edited by anon users, since they generally are more likely to make suspicious edits. I've currently got 1700+ items on my watchlist and it takes me a while to check all the ones that come up.... -- Arwel 00:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can make seperate psudo-watchlists, by making sub pages in your User space, and going to their Related changes pages. See my User page for examples. Oh, and I've added "Welcome, newcomers" to my watchlist too. JesseW 10:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also added it, it makes sense that this would be vandalized a lot since every vandal gets a friendly link to it in their talk page. Rhobite 00:55, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

Please, please does anyone know of any image whatsoever that would be at all aplicable to this article even a picture of dna or a chromosome or something, i'd really like to get this article featured. i spent a lot of time on it and i would also like any comments and critisisms. --Larsie 18:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the german Wikipedia?

The German Wikipedia seems to be down. I recived the message "Wiki does not exist" with the Wikimedia Foundation logo at the left corner. What happened here? --Filzstift 22:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It just worked for me. -- Arwel 00:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Simplified articles

Has it every been discussed to make simplied versions of articles? For example many math and physics articles are very technical and I was thinking that it might be a good idea to make some simplified articles for some of the most important topics with a general introduction and a section requiring only highschool knowledge. Many articles like Maxwell's equations and schrödinger equation is pretty math heavy but it would be possible to write for example schrödinger equation (simplified) where the non-relativistic Schrödinger wave equation might be discussed together with a solution to one dimensional particle in a box, many important results is possible to discuss with only highschool level of math and physics. I think these kinds of articles should not be too light but more like introductory ,with the purpose of helping people understand the real article. Any thoughts? Passw0rd

I would say that as a rule it would be better to add the "simplified" information to the main article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:33, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this is that I think it would get too big and way too messy. Better keep one article with correct and rigorous definitions and one that would have the hard parts removed, because else you would get one article with a mix of text with difficult equations around in the text and then simplified explanations and it would become an article that is hard to read. Someone who have a background of the required stuff would probably not want lots of simplified explanations that might even not be entirely correct around in the text while someone who doesn't have the same background would rather not have to read a lot of stuff where they may not even understand the notation and have to search through the article to find the parts they might understand and with this mix it's likely to just get confusing. Passw0rd

E.g. in Schrödinger equation, talk about hilbert spaces is necessary for a rigorous definition but it will only confuse those who doesn't know what it is, and much can be done without mentioning it. This applies to many articles, in many I think it would be good to have just one article but in some cases I think there might be room for two. Passw0rd

Are you familiar with http://simple.wikipedia.org ? They need alot of help over there. func(talk) 23:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also Wikibooks is good for this type of thing -QM for non scientists, QM for undergraduates, QM for graduates - that sort of thing. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 10:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, what are the requirements for articles on simple:? Are they meant to be written entirely in Basic English, or do they use a more general meaning? --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 23:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The suggestion is somewhat like have a ready reference Miccropedia and in deapth Macropedia like Britannai. I think the best solution for such articles to be edited in a way that summarizes the topic to a satisfactory level for browser and then offers more in depth explanation. User:Dainamo:Dainamo

In my opinion, if any encyclopedia article in any specialized field does not teach a reasonably well-educated person everything they need to know to understand the article, (either within the article or by following a few links no more than two steps back,) then it is just a form of back-patting or self-congratulation. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to empower others by teaching what you know to those who don't know; not to set yourself and others in your field apart from everyone else by maintaining a gap between the simple articles and the complex. GUllman 04:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what GUllman said. but at the same time, expert-level knowledge should get wickified if someone's willing to do it. so i think we just have to reconcile the two levels of explanation in a single article. rmbh 16:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Researching with Wikipedia

As an upshot of some discussion in the recent Seattle Meetup, several of us have started Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. The primary goal is to help librarians and other researchers understand both the strengths and limitations of Wikipedia as a reference tool; I suspect it could have the secondary value of drawing the attention of the Wikipedian community to some of our weaknesses and thus stimulating the community to consider some ways we might turn Wikipedia into a more valuable reference. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:16, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Something must be done about this

Look at this:

Nahali language

Kalto

Something must be done about this. Bennett Chronister 10:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK I've done it. To redirect readers from one page to another you blank the text then put #REDIRECT[[Kalto]] there. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 10:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now you just lost all the information about how it has 5,000 speakers, is spoken in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtria, has loans from the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages, etc. That didn't do any good at all.Bennett Chronister 11:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can get that information from the Nahali language page history and add it to the Kalto article. Filiocht 13:46, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

We could merge the two pages, as Kalto history and Nahali language history do not overlap. Should I do this? Such a manoeuvre is not easily reversed - but other than that I can't see any reason not to merge the histories. zoney ♣ talk 14:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason that these histories need merging. There's no suggestion that either entry should be deleted. Histories should only be merged when otherwise the results will be incomplete or confusing. A note in the talk page of the merged article saying where any cut-and-pasted text came from is quite sufficient. If and when the redirect is proposed for deletion, that's when the merging of histories needs to be considered. Andrewa 21:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vanity

Hi. A have found this case of vanity. This user decided to insert himself in this category. I thought I'd just remove the category link from his page, but then again it's bad policy to meddle with other user's personal page. I've left a note on the person's user page, but what if he does not responds? Regards, Redux 13:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMO, it is fine to edit a user page to fix a vanity cat linking. Categories lead to such messy situations like that. If you don't want to do it, I'll do it. JesseW 10:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian

Has anyone else noticed User:Merovingian?

--Etaonish 16:02, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

No, why? Did they do something bad? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:07, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

~~LOOK AT THE LINK. Apparently Merovingian died.--Etaonish 18:48, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)~~

But looking at the picture there previously it doesn't look like the same person. violet/riga (t) 18:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Also checked, and mero's name was Ryan. However, the obit makes no mention of any Ryan, so...?--Etaonish 19:07, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

~~Not to mention that Merovingian's name is Ryan, not Andrew, and his birthday is on 10 November, not 28 September. - 19:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)~~

Bah, stupid edit non-conflict. - 19:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

What's the deal with these non-message producing edit-conflicts? It's happened to me a couple of times today. Paul August 19:35, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Something's odd here. Merovingian has edited since October 20, ~~and the name and birthdate in that obituary don't match what was on the previous version of his userpage.~~ (oops, why didn't I get an edit conflict?). Anyway, the name and birthdate on his userpage might have been deliberate misdirection, and I suppose someone else might know the account's password—they'd have to, to make that last update. Spooky. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

His journal reveals that it's a friend of his. - 19:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

That is, the person who died was a friend of his. (Not, as I first thought, "a friend of his updated his wikipedia page with news of his death, and explained this on his journal". Sigh. My mind.) JesseW 10:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

odd, minor edits from anons

In my watchlist, I have noticed a regular pattern over the past couple of months of new anons (with no existing page) making one small, almost irrelevant edit to an article - like changing US to USA, or changing a verb to its synonym. Sometimes they're rollback-able, but often not - just pointless. It happens often enough to unrelated articles that I wonder if it's part of a Web-link scam or something like that, but I can't figure out what it would be. (I don't think they're done by the same anon, although I can't say I pay much attention to those numerical ID's.) Any ideas as to what, if anything, is going on? - DavidWBrooks 18:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It sounds harmless to me. What's wrong with those edits? Maybe they just liked their wording better? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

That's probably it, of course. I was just wondering whether anybody knew of a Deeper and More Sinister Motive. - DavidWBrooks

Such things when not destructive keep less edited Wikipedia articles alive. Just because it's a preferred wording by someone doesn't mean their preference is not preferable (does that make sense?). zoney ♣ talk 01:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And making a tiny change to an article that doesn't change meaning or need reverting seems like a responsible way to try out the wiki if one doesn't know about the sandbox. — mendel ☎ 01:40, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I really think this is just newbies trying out Wikipedia. (Did it myself for my first-ever edit, back whenever, a hundred million Wikiyears ago). Some vandalize, some do small useful things. Antandrus 22:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wiki tweak for Windows

I don't know where to put this, but I love it. If you use Windows and Internet Explorer, try this:

Open a new text file in "notepad"
Copy and paste the following text into it exactly as written:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\SearchUrl\w]
@="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s"

Save the text file as "wiki.reg" (make sure it does get called .reg not .reg.txt)
Double click on the file you just saved, and click yes when it asks if you want to merge it into the registry. All done!

You now have Wiki for Windows! Any article you want to look up, type "w" and the article name in as a web address (don't forget caps!), and it'll take you straight to it.

w Disney

w Donald Trump

w WP:RFC

The same trick can be used to make an in-line command to add any text into a web address and open it. the 1st line stays the same, 2nd line just change the last letter to the one you want, 3rd line is the address with %s for the text you give it. Google example:

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\SearchUrl\g]

@="http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%s&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"

If theres a wiki tips page, add this to it :) FT2 01:18, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Tools (that's the place for these things). We didn't have that before for IE, although we did for nearly all the other browsers out there... Thanks! JesseW 10:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photographer's barnstar

Can someone create a photographer's barnstar? We need one. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:24, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Suspect article

Article Bluetooth sniping: is this a wind up? (Couldn't see where else to ask this) Shantavira 13:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks real, quite a few references on web. Just Google it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:02, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors saturating page one of Google searches

Is anyone else bothered by this? While I love Wikipedia, when I search the web I don't want to have to wade through the same information on the first two pages of a Google search under different URIs like brainyencyclopedia, etc.

I tried a -Wikipedia with some improvement, but it bothers me to have to do this, at least partly because if other users have to do this, it's not a good thing for the image of Wikipedia.

Any ideas? Spalding 23:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Not much to do about it, I'm afraid...Enforcing the link back requirement, will ensure higher page rang for Wikipedia, meaning that wikipedia.org snags the top position among the mirrors of Wikipedia material. However, the other mirrors will still be there. I don't suppose there's much of a chance of convincing Google to filter the hits, and frankly I don't think it is a good idea at all. — David Remahl 23:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You might point out the search results to Google using their quality feedback form, or by emailing [email protected]. Since Wikipedia is responsible for the content of its mirrors, it seems reasonable that Google could lower the page rank of every mirror. --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 23:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, from a legal point of view, Wikipedia has no more rights or responsibilities to the material on the site than any of the mirrors (that follow the GFDL, that is). But sure, Google can manipulate their search results in whatever way they see fit, and they'll probably listen to your feedback. — David Remahl 00:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we pushed harder about requiring the word "Wikipedia" to appear on at least once on each page of Wikipedia content, then the mirrors(and Wikipedia) could be easily blocked(on a per-user basis) by using "-wikipedia". We should do this. JesseW 07:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps even asking nicely is worth a try. We already have a list of compliant mirrors. Why not have a list of recommended mirrors? To be recommended, the mirror would need to comply not just with the GFDL, but also with other conventions such as having the word "Wikipedia" in text on every article page, and a link to the original article in Wikipedia. Neither of these are in theory required by the GFDL, although some would argue that the second is in practice. The advantage of these requests or conventions is that we can change them easily. Andrewa 01:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That does sound like a worthy idea. Why don't you flesh out ideas about what should be required of "recommended"(or maybe "friendly") mirrors, where they would be listed, etc. on the Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks page... JesseW 02:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just as long as we're clear on that mentioning Wikipedia is not a requirement, since the GFDL forbids us from placing additional restrictions on "our" material. — David Remahl 02:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Selling Wikipedia CDs on eBay

Just went over to eBay and wondered what would happen if I searched for "Wikipedia". No results for the UK but three international results, mainly regarding sales of the German Wikipedia CD. Should people be selling these CDs? violet/riga (t) 23:25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, there is nothing to prevent you from doing that. You can even create duplicates and sell, as long as you follow the GFDL. — David Remahl 00:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are details on this CD at meta:Wikipedia auf CD-en. Angela .

Jimbo Wales Christmas greetings

Hi. It's mid-november and Jimbo just uploaded his Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year greetings to the commons, and I thought I'd share it with you (It's Public domain, you known). -- Chris 73 Talk 02:03, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Help Scott Joplin!

Can somebody fix the information listed on the Wikipedia site for the movie, "The Sting". Some fool wrote that the theme song, "The Entertainer", was written by Marvin Hamlish. Actually, it was written by Scott Joplin - a very talented African American who was the father of ragtime. Marvin Hamlish only adapted the song for the movie. I am a computer idiot and don't know what to do. But I hate to see someone thinking the credit should go to Marvin Hamlish!! Sob!

This was fixed by User:A. J. A. DeWitt on 18:12, 3 May 2004. When did you last look at the article? :-) The magic of Wikipedia. JesseW 08:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I sympathize deeply, although as noted the article credits Joplin. And I just tweaked it a bit, because The Entertainer is a Joplin rag plain and simple (the previous language seems to suggest that Hamlisch created it out of Joplin rags.). I wish I had clipped the article in which some idiot film critic praised Scott Joplin's performance of Hamlisch's music. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sanitizing external links

I have a proposal in at MediaWiki feature requests for something I'm calling "external link sanitizing." I want a nice easy way to produce external links that look, feel, and serve the reader just as well as ordinary external links, but which contain text that is transformed in such a way that search engines will not credit them as a reference to an external website.

I want to reduce the incentive for external sites to place links in WIkipedia as a way of increasing their search engine ratings.

There may be much simpler technical solutions that I'm overlooking.

This can of course effectively be done now by using services such as tinyurl and others. For example, http://aidepikiw.notlong.com will take you to Wikipedia, but search engines will consider it to be a link to notlong; thus, it provides a functional link to Wikipedia that does not increase Wikipedia's pagerank.

I don't see any issues with using tinyurl and friends to sanitize links, when used very occasionally in special situations. But others do, and certainly it would be better to find a solution that only uses Wikipedia's own resources, and which keeps the "plain text" of the original link in a form that is recoverable by human visual inspection.

I don't believe that all links need to be sanitized, but I believe that as soon as any question about a page or a link arises, there should be an easy way to sanitize a link, or all the links on a particular page. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just what links do you feel need to be sanitized? In general, I'm against us using tinyurl or equivalents: I want to be able to glance at a link and know what site it is from. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:41, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

The specific situations I am concerned about are articles like Traumatic masturbatory syndrome; I thought American World University fell in this category too but I was mistaken about the article history. The scenario is: an article is placed which is clearly a piece of POV promotion containing a link to a site, and it is decided that the article can be NPOV-ed and kept. Or, it is perceived that a link was placed as part of a link-spamming campaign but the link is nevertheless deemed useful. I want to preserve the link's functionality for the reader, I want to preserve the information in the link, I want the actual URL to be accessible to human inspection, yet constructed in such a way that search engines will not credit it as a link to the site. My specific suggestion is something like http://links.wikipedia.org/moc.sdrawkcab.www, where the link is transformed in some transparent way like being spelled backwards, and the links.wikipedia.org server decodes it and redirects to www.backwards.com. That may not be the best technical means. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the intent of this proposal...Spamming wiki's with links is a popular method of artificially increasing one's page rank. Just so we're sure I understand what you're proposing, an example: Instead of linking directly to URLs, the software links to a local script which redirects to the right page. For example, [http://apple.com apple] would produce a link to http://wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?redirect=http://apple.com.

This method has some disadvantages.

Privacy concerns. By indirecting URLs, Wikipedia could track the browsing habits of individual users (or at least see what external links from Wikipedia they visit)
Obfuscation. Becomes more difficult to mouse-over a link to see where it points.
Non-universability: Smart spiders will recognize the redirect and let the link count towards the site's page rank anyway. I don't know whether Google does this.

A really sneaky way, which would be very difficult for a search engine to detect, would be to use JavaScript to construct the URLs. This has a number of obvious disavdantages, so it is not even worth pursuing (mainly that not all browsers support JavaScript).

I do not support the proposal, but if it is ever implemented it should be universal, not selective. I.e. we should not boost _any_ external links' page ranks. We should discriminate against just a few "objectionable" sites. — David Remahl 02:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Replying to myself...Another thing to consider is the two-way nature of page rank. Authoritative pages that link out to other authoritative pages _gain_ even more page rank. It would be unwise to let go of this page rank source. — David Remahl 02:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why should the sanitation system be universal? There are some genuinely usefull site which it would be good to promote/help by listing them here. If for example an article references a site heavily then that site desrves to have a higher page rank...it's only fair. Also remember that the page rank isn't some kind of freebie reward it's designed to give important/relevant sites an edge when searches are executed. Surely some of these sites should be given an increased relevance rating if an editor thinks people might go their for more information. Perhaps only sites with ads or for companies should be santized. Also I'm no expert but doesn't google let sites use robots.txt to limit what google indexes, could that be used in some way? [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 03:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Discriminating against a certain type of sites (e.g. commercial sites, porn sites or shock sites) is POV and therefore I don't think Wikipedia should do it. — David Remahl 00:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A different situation that may require a different approach is an article like David Pearce, now under discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/David_Pearce. It would be convenient to have a quick, easy way to "sanitize" a page perceived to be a likely link-spamming effort during discussion. And, if the page is kept, after. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- For that <nowiki>[http://spam.com/ spam link]</nowiki>'ing the links is sufficient (current policy). — David Remahl 02:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Top-level reply. I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of solving Google's problems. Their Pagerank system is being gamed, they are the ones who should remove the incentive for SEO spam. That said, I think a more productive solution would be for Wikipedia to produce a coherent external link policy (and I also have healthystrokes.com in mind). It's very hard to find a policy here on Wikipedia that says "SPAM IS BANNED." There isn't really one. Rhobite 04:52, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

If a link isn't useful, we should remove it. If a link is useful, then its increased PageRank is deserved and there's no reason to obscure it. Moreover, obscuring external links is a disservice to users. —Steven G. Johnson 00:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. — David Remahl 00:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regstered User Names that resemble IP numbers

Please read very slowly and carefully:

Today, while I was studying RC in Wikipedia, I saw several edits of the Sandbox that were contributed by registered Wikipedians with their User Names looking like IP addresses. (Note that the way I differentiate between the 2 kinds of contributions is by what it will result in when clicking on the User Name while looking in RC.) Please try to do whatever you can to make sure nobody is doing this. Here are some that it is especially important for some Wikipedia admin to watch over:

Those of the 2002-early 2004 vandal Michael
Those of the late 2004 vandal Mr. Treason
Those of the Georgia guy. (One just happened earlier today; 66.245.7.6; I even couldn't show the actual IP's contributions; while I was trying to do so, I saw the contributions of the Wikipedian who registered with this User Name instead.)

Now, to answer the question "Who is the Georgia guy??" the answer is:

The Georgia guy has gone by various IP numbers sine February 2004 while editing Wikipedia, all of which are either 66.32.xxx.xxx or 66.245.xxx.xxx (but the reverse is not perfectly true; there have even been some times in Wikipedia history when there has been an IP that someone other than the Georgia guy has gone by that was later (usually several months) used by the Georgia guy.) Note that the Georgia guy is not a vandal. 66.245.108.212 20:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is it a bad thing for users to register a user name that looks like an IP?

Also a question for developers - if i block say 212.56.73.2 and there is a user with that username will I block the user, the IP or both? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also for developers, or admins, or whoever: could we come up with some policy for removing user accounts? When I go to Special:Listusers, I am rather shocked by the hundreds of pages of red links. I did some spot checking... most of these accounts have never made a single edit. A number of users have commented on the fact that they wanted a particular account name but found that it was already taken... by someone with no edits whatsoever. Perhaps there could be some policy along these lines:

~~A user account can be removed if:~~

~~The account is a year old, and no edits were ever made using the account.~~
The account has had no activity in over a year, and the only edits made were to a single VfD or other Wikipedia vote, (after a year of no other edits, I think it would be safe to assume the account was a sock puppet).
~~The account has had no activity in over a year, and an admin is willing to certify that the only edits made were blatant and obvious vandalism.~~

~~Any thoughts?~~ func(talk) 21:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the basis of confusion alone, I think ip address-like usernames should be banned. There is no reasonable need for a username like that, and they are confusing. Regarding removal of old usernames, that sounds reasonable. If it would be possible, it would be good to send an email to those accounts that were to be removed, a month or so before they would be, just to alert anyone who honestly forgot about Wikipedia and wants to come back. But other than that, it sounds like a good idea. JesseW 22:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought the software blocked usernames which resemble IP addresses, but perhaps I was mistaken: User:152.163.100.199 seems to be a real user rather than an AOL IP address, since it's been marking edits minor and links in histories lead to the user page rather than the contributions. Something's up; maybe one of the developers can enlighten us? —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree on both counts: Block user accounts that look like IP's in software, and delete inactive and unused accounts after email notification. — David Remahl 02:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This needs to be done ASAP (the IP username bit anyhow) Have a look at WP:VIP and you will see a user vandalising with an IP username. When you click on his contributions list it looks like he doesn't have any. This is clearly a way to get around people looking to spot vandalism. I suggest we manually block all usernames that resemble IP's (by putting User:123.456.789.001 rather than just 123.456.789.001 in the block field. We need to stamp this out now. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 16:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WHOOPS!!! I'm sorry, and I hate to be such a waffler, but it occurs to me that my proposal was ill-considered. I hadn't taken into consideration the possiblity that many users of Wikipedia might sign up for an account so that they can take advantage of the watch list, viewing preferences, etc. The fact that an account has no editing activity is not an indication that the account is "inactive", it could simply be one of our faithful "readers" taking proper advantage of the software. (I need to think before I post....) func(talk) 16:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't such a bad idea, it just needs a little refinement. Think about it: the software has to know when you last read your talk page in order to post a message when someone drops you a note. This could be used to monitor how often a logged-in user actually uses their account, and after a lengthy period of inactivity—and several warning messages over a good many months—the account could be removed as a possible security risk or something. I'm pretty sure that if I didn't log in for a year, all my cookies would have been expunged and I would have no chance of recalling my password. --Phil | Talk 16:48, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Just to make sure everyone knows, user names that are IP addresses have been forbidden for a long time precisely because of the problems noted above. A recently introduced bug made it possible to register such names again, but it's been fixed and the accounts removed. --Brion 05:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In The News - one last time

I am rather fed up with the provincials who edit the Template:In_the_news and Current events pages, who constantly put up rather tedious headlines pulled from the average US "news" site/ TV channel that is full of either irrelevant crap or US-pertinent only "international" reporting. Can the admin or bureacrats or whoever changes policies and instructions on editing do something about it? More detail at this page: Template_talk:In_the_news#Ignoran-uh...Americentrism -- Simonides 22:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I never usually look at these, but looking at Template:In_the_news I see one story about Uganda, one about Iran, one about Spain, and one about India. There is no explicit mention of the US, although there is one mention of an American company, Union Carbide. There are no US-related items on today's Current events; yesterday's included possible illness of the US Vice President, a US cabinet shuffle, and two items on the War in Iraq, where "Coalition" is becoming a thinly veiled term for US. Offhand, none of these seem objectionable to me: if, say, the UK or Australia had a cabinet shuffle or were involved in a major battle, I'd expect that to be there, too. Can you give an example of what you find objectionable? And have you tried participating in this and found yourself thwarted, or are you just asking someone else to have different priorities? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:01, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
But the lack of US-centric items is because Simonides edited the ITN template and added the items you listed. This is best discussed at Template talk:In_the_news. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you, violet.
- If you had followed the link I gave you Jmabel, you would have seen all your queries predicted and answered, including the possibility of reading a reply that took longer to write than it would have to check the background and obviate the same reply. -- Simonides 23:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

wikipedia diff tool

Hi I am makeing a website that will do some diffs of different modifications to documents. I relly like the way that the wikipedia shows the history with the diffs. Could any one please provide me with a tool or Source Code to implemente this on my own site.

you caan email me at: 'mr.computer.geek at gmail.com'

Thank you very much

The source code for MediaWiki is available from its website. It is implemented in PHP. — David Remahl 22:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia look & feel

Do you know how to change the look and feel of the wiki (like the logo aand navigation?)

Heruls

One or more anonymous users have insistently removed the info on Jordanes and Procopius in the article on the Heruls. Now one of these users claims to be a Claudia (with a smiley) who accuses me of reverting an accurate and balanced version of the text, and of insisting about my views, whereas very little of the text is mine. I am giving up for now. Perhaps, a third person would like to take over, and maybe do a better job than I did.--Wiglaf 15:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trivia contest

Want to have some fun? The Wikipedia Trivia Contest, Round 3 is open... Lupo 16:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Front Page Defaced

Somebody has placed Gay Porn pictures on the front page and I have no idea how to report it.

Ziggy

Catalan Wiki Over 10,000

To day the catalan wiki is over 10,000 articles.

Pérez 21:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

¡Meravellós! -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Links to gunshopfinder by Monkeyleg.

I have a question as to whether a certain series of additions are within the spirit of wikipedia or not.

User:Monkeyleg has contributed to many individual firearms pages. His typical contribution is to add an external link to gunshopfinder.com, such as Photos and information about current production Beretta pistols.

This site is a commercial web page which has the primary purpose of helping people find a local gun dealer. While helping people to purchase arms may be a honorable cause, it seems odd to me to have this site so extensively linked to from our firearms pages.

Can anybody else share their opinion on these links? Should they stay or go? - CrucifiedChrist

Go. Wikipedia is not a web directory. And Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Stay. The site appears fairly neutral (it is not a vendor - it merely lists vendors) and it does provide a) comprehensive information and b) photos of guns. So there you go. Dpbsmith and I will be selecting our weapons of choice and fighting a duel over this some misty morning soon, at a location to be decided. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Compromise: One link, from the main "gun" page, or whichever is the most appropriate. Maurreen 06:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

California 4th Grade Mission Project

I don't feel like getting involved in what's happening in this article, but somebody ought to. Personally I think the whole article should be deleted, but I've nominated it for deletion twice myself and I won't do it again. In the meantime, someone who feels very strongly on the matter of Native American rights has been adding material to the page in a non-encyclopedic fashion. It's been tagged NPOV, but it needs some diplomatic enforcing of wikipolicy, IMHO. --Woggly 13:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at a toned-down rewrite, more germane to the topic at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job. Better than what I would have done (just erased those two paragraphs, didn't have the patience to try to rewrite them in balanced fashion). Thanks. --Woggly 06:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've rewritten some parts and trimmed it down somewhat as well.

Darrien 10:46, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Slashdot mentions

Should articles linked to on Slashdot be protected for a few hours? Clovis culture is about to get vandalised, I predict. PhilHibbs 10:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be completely antithetical to our ethos, and a distinct insult to slashdot readers, the majority of whom are sane positive people. What sort of welcome to wikipedia is it if the first article they visit is locked? How exactly will that encourage them to join us? Besides which, we seem to route around vandalism relatively well. Mass vandalism of a single page would not ruffle a single wikifeather. I don't think your suggestion has been though through and I would oppose it were it ever to be suggested as policy. And contrary to your preiction, the article seems to have been improved very slightly over the past few hours, with not a vandal in sight. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You're right, my prediction didn't come true, and my suggestion is withdrawn with appologies. As a Slashdot reader & contributor of some 7 years, though, I don't think that the average Slashdot reader would be offended to be told that there a lot of juvenile trolls on Slashdot. PhilHibbs 14:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Google Scholar

http://scholar.google.com/scholar/about.html#search8

Deleting searches

How do I delete the search topics I've entered in the search box? For example, once I've completed my search and want to start a new one, I start typing and every search I've ever done that started with the same letter is displayed.Can I clear this somehow??

Thanks, Cindy

Look in your browser's settings for something like "form autofill" or "saved form information"; you should be able to clear it there. --Brion 20:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You might also be able to delete individual entries. With Firefox on Windows, you highlight an item in the popup list (easiest using the arrow keys) then press '<shift>-<delete>'. With IE, you might only need to select and press '<delete>'. -- Solipsist 08:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Is this copyrighted?

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

I have seen other sites post articles from this site with the message

"Source: U.S. Library of Congress"

So it's not copyrighted? Can anything from the site be posted on wiki? If not, why not? And who holds the copyright? 65.66.156.171 19:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The copyright status of information available through the LOC varies. You cannot make a blanket assumption about something simply because it appears on the LOC web site. You need to check the copyright status of each exhibit (or of individual items within an exhibit). The countyr studies site that you link to is public domain because all of the information was developed by agencies/employees of the federal government. Other LOC exhibits may contains items that are not in the public domain. The FAQ link for that site contains this: With the exception of some photographs, which are clearly marked in the photograph's caption, text and graphics contained in the Country Studies On-Line are not copyrighted. They are considered to be in the public domain and thus available for free and unrestricted use. As a courtesy, however, we ask that appropriate credit be given to the series. If you or your publisher require specific written permission for the record, queries should be directed via Email to [email protected]. older≠wiser

Copyright question?

I don't know whether this is the right place to ask this question. Apologies in advance if it is not and kindly point the right direction.

From Maruti Udyog website, in Terms of Use.

RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MARUTI MATERIALS You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, products or services obtained from any Maruti Web Sites, directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Maruti will not be held liable for any delays, errors or omissions therefrom, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Based on this can we use images from this in Wikipedia?

Thanks,

Alren 23:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not any more. Its good to have clear licensing information, but non-commercial images are now discouraged on Wikipedia, as the view is that it may in future be desirable to have cheap printed versions available for distribution in the third world. And the best way to get the cheapest print versions is to have 3rd parties fight over getting the best price to quality ratio with commercial distributions . -- Solipsist 23:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In free market theory, that is... — David Remahl 01:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So what's the bottom line, can we use it or not? How does one get about getting permissions especially, when outside US, there is not much copyright info on the website and also not much explicitly non-copyright stuff is available? Alren 17:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reversible Logic

http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/reversible.html

Comments?

What are you driving at? It doesn't seem to be a plagiarism from us, unless I'm missing something. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

"Patrolling" of recent changes

There has been some discussion on IRC about whether the term "patrolling" of recent changes gives the right impression or not. In MediaWiki 1.4, there will be a feature that allows logged in users to click a link on a diff to say they have "patrolled" the edit. The edit can then be hidden from recent changes using "hide patrolled edits". The link on a diff will say "Mark as patrolled". After you click that, you will see "The selected revision has been marked as patrolled.". When it is disabled, it will say "The Recent Changes Patrol feature is currently disabled."

Are there any suggestions on what would be a better term for this, such as "checked", or do you feel "patrolled" is appropriate? Angela . 08:24, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

"reviewed" perhaps? Or should that be reserved for future fact reviews? I don't think there's anything wrong with patrolled, really. — David Remahl 08:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there are better alternatives to "patrolled"; maybe "vetted", "checked", "reviewed", "inspected"... — Matt 11:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Patrolled" seems fine to me, and suggests a shallow examination for obvious signs of vandalism, misinformation or POV. "Reviewed" or "inspected" imply a much deeper level of fact checking. —AlanBarrett 18:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like patrolled, but "checked" might be better. A question - will any user be able to use this bit, or just admins? Also, where can I find a full list of features for 1.4? --Golbez 18:49, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Who has access to it will be up to each wiki. See Wikipedia:User access levels. The default is that only sysops have it, but changes can be proposed at Wikipedia talk:User access levels. There's a partial list of new features at Test:Main Page. Angela . 22:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should appear inclusive, not defensive. Patrolled has odd connotations, and its meaning in this context certainly isn't immediately obvious. Perhaps "this edit has been accepted by other users"? --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 23:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about just viewed or read. Other alternatives, scanned (elements of virus checking but also 'scan your eye over that'), perused or visited. -- Solipsist 07:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Patrolled seems fine to me, as does visited. They both seem neutral to me, and have no implication that action will be taken, but leave that option open. As a fallback, I'd go for scanned, but in this case the word carries a more active message. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 13:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Will this just mean that a determined vandal will just make sure to patrol his own edit, or is there functionality to prevent this. Of course (!?) only logged in user should be able to patrol. But even if there is not any qualifications required it is a nice feature which work against the majority of less determined vandals, as well as well-intended people making undesirable edits.

When will this feature be available in wikipedia? Thue | talk 18:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How good should WikiReaders be?

Does anyone have thoughts on what standard of quality (articles) Wikireaders should be? — Matt 11:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Omar

Talk:Arthur Omar

The text about Arthur Omar that has been removed from Wickipedia for infringing copyrights of Museuvirtual was written and published as a release and is used everywhere universaly as my current biography and can be presented anywhere without my previous authorization. The same text is publishe in Wickipedia in portuguese. It is copyright free. Based on this I ask Wickipedia to replace it again in the english version. museuvirtual.com.br/arthuromar is my personal site. Any doubts please get in touch with [email protected] or [email protected] — 201.17.36.17 21:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot effect --> Web traffic

I've proposed at talk:slashdot effect that the slashdot effect article should become more generalised and be placed in web traffic. With only other person replying (in opposition) it'd be nice to get some more opinions if some of you could take a look. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussions

Having recently tried to initiate a discussion on an article talk page (see above) and only getting one reply I was thinking: would a Wikipedia:Discussions page, listing talk pages with ongoing discussion topics that are wanting more attention, help to get more involvement? Perhaps the number of ongoing discussions could get out of hand, but it may be worth a shot. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would this duplicate WP:RFC? If not, could it somehow be merged with that? Angela . 22:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps in part, but I was thinking of it being less of a dispute resolution system and more of a "I'd like to know what other people think" advertising of a discussion. violet/riga (t) 23:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)