Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramitmahajan (talk | contribs) at 08:52, 20 October 2006 (→Password change spam: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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.

Vandalism on articles: Emran Mian and Kamran Nazeer

Two wikipedia users seem to be using these articles as a platform for pursuing a private grudge against the author. I've tried to edit out the false material, but the user keeps re-posting. I know the author personally and can state with certainty that the claims are untrue - is there any way to prevent this material from continually reappearing?

I have also known the author personally for a number of years and can confirm that these claims are incorrect. Please do prevent this material from continually reappearing. Thank you.

If it is a personal attack, and occuring again and again, try requesting Semi-protection, if they are IPs. If not, talk to an administrator, and ask what they can do. Scalene 10:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power as a renewable energy source

Last year, there was a huge talk page debate about whether nuclear power counted as a renewable energy source. (A number of people from various backgrounds consider it to be renewable, such as physicist Bernard Cohen, George W. Bush, and the UK's Science and Innovation Minister David Sainsbury.)

At some point, someone remembered the neutral point of view, and, rather than trying to claim that it is or is not, the consensus was to include a section in the article explaining who claims what and why, and leave it at that. Everyone was happy with the decision and the discussion was archived.

I came back to the article months later and the section had been deleted. Now I'm trying to convince the anti-nuclear folks to leave it in the article as per the consensus, but they don't want to listen and keep deleting or biasing it. Can we get some more (neutral, third-party) opinions on the talk page to break the stalemate?

(And I'm not asking to prolong the debate even further. That would be pointless; everything you could argue one way or the other has already been said. We just need some input on what should be included in the relevant section.) -- Omegatron 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Michael Van Locke 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)I myself am a professor at a prominent university(for security reasons I will not say which)In the past decade I have developed a nuculear power cell that in theory will solve all of our energy problems, however I need funding. The governemnt ignores my consistent pleas for finnacial help. Undoubtfully, they wish to remain welathy oil owners. Bush and his administration have fasitically tried to silence me. They have even deleted my essays that I have posted on Wikipedia. I wish to share my knowledge and inventions with thepublic, but I need money and protection. If you can supply either, please respond. if not good luck to your children and their children. I am old and weak, it is time for me to pass the secret of nuclear power sources on to another person or hopefully company. PLEASE HELP. --Michael Van Locke 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I made a small contribution to firmly establish the Nuclear power issue in the Renewable_energy article, according to the outcome of the previous Great Nuclear Debate: Renewable, as a term, was coined to exclude nuclear power. I find this "final argument" most appropriate to conclude the debate at this location. Merits and demerits of each type of energy source may be discussed elsewhere. MGTom 12:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this particular debate will continue in Wikipedia for some time! Thanks for your input.
I haven't been monitoring these particular articles lately, and suggest that if you do (and I hope you will), you take Wikibreaks from them from time to time, and contribute less controversial stuff. This will help your own perspective and motivation. Wikipedia is a community thing, and if you ever feel that a battle will be lost without you, then walk away and lose it without further damage. It's already lost.
The sad fact is that POV material is quite deliberately and unapologetically posted on Wikipedia from time to time, more regularly in some articles than others, and always will be. Saving the world takes priority over other people's ideals (;-> every day. The wonderful thing is, the postmodern generations know all about critical reading, and aren't as easily fooled as mine was, so it doesn't in the long term matter very much at all. Which is why they love Wikipedia so much I think.
And I think these articles have improved a great deal in my absence. Which is a relief in some ways, but shouldn't surprise me. Andrewa 21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move your comments to the talk page so the other editors see them? -- Omegatron 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is already in the archives of that page, in some form or other. But I'll see whether I think it will help to repeat any of it there. If others are reinventing the wheel, it's sometimes useful to answer them. Andrewa 15:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Deco from David re Wikipedia

Dear Deco,

You had kindly answered my question re editing out a part of WIkipedia and then using Export to get it in to the current version.

In confronting this cycle of action I realized I need some help.

I would gladly hire you to do the job for me and put the finished roduct on a DVD R for me to download into my Sony Clie PEG TH 55 PDA.

My e-mail address is : [email address removed to prevent spam] If you would send me an e-mail on this and we can talk without glutting the thread with innaplicable info not pertinent to the pump.

OR if this is nto what you wish to do could you give me step by step instructions on how to do this and have the following finished product - a 1.8GB approx version of Wikipedia downloadable into my Palm OS 5.2 operating system of my Sony Clie PEG TH 55 without that specific article I mentioned earlier.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best David

This would probably be best handled through private communications. Please take a look at What Wikipedia is not. As far as I can tell, theres nothing wrong about downloading Wikipedia articles, but the problem is discussing things like this here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention needed

At Docking (animals) where one person keeps including a section called (In)Human Punishment. The section details the punishing of human being using branding and other forms of maiming.

It has been pointed out to this writer that however meritorious, the topic of human judicial punishment is separate from the docking of animals.

Others have quite rightly suggested that the material should be placed in an appropriate article, or even in its own article if there is enough material.

The reply is that the human being is an animal and therefore the section is being restored.

Animal docking and human maiming are clearly not the same topic.

More importantly, any person truly attempting to find out more on human punishment would not look in an article on the docking of animals.

Could someone (or better yet, a few) please review this?

Quill 05:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page I asked the editor to provide sources that describe these practices as "docking". --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article

I want to rename U.S. Maritime Administration as United States Maritime Administration, to make the style of its name parallel to those of several related agencies. I've renamed articles before, but none with this number of other articles linked to it. I need somebody to either A) do the rename, or B) give me some help with double redirects (I don't quite understand them) or other complications that might arise. Lou Sander 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Take a look at WP:2R - basically you need to go to 'what links here' and edit all of the redirect pages to go to the new title. I also check 'what links here' of each of the redirect pages to ensure no doubles. Cheers Natgoo 10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the age of an article quickly

Is there any quick-and-dirty way to find the original creation date of an article, particularly one with a high edit count? I don't currently know of any other way besides opening the page history and going back 500 edits at a time, which isn't pleasant if you're trying to find the original copy of, say, George W. Bush. Thanks, --Aaron 02:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, when you are on the history page of an article, click on 'earliest' instead of the standard 'latest'. Garion96 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this does not work for some of the oldest articles as part of the history was lost in an early software upgrade. Occassionally you see comments like "typo" as the first edit of a long page - a clear giveaway of missing history. Rmhermen 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

A [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grazonuser] is vandalizing and removing the members of categories of Atheists and American Anti Iraq War Activists. Just letting you know!Qrc2006 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Island Park

If anyone in the New York state area is familiar with this community, we could use a little help at the article. Clearly, the current contents are HIGHLY inappropriate, but there's not much of a clean version to revert to. If no one can help flesh it out, it probably needs to be nuked: it certainly can't stay in its current state. Joyous! | Talk 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, as of 9 October (when you asked for help here), Thousand Island Park was simply a redirect to Wellesley Island, and as far as I can tell, that's the way it should be (I don't know anything about the area). If there is enough to say about Thousand Island Park to make a decent article, then you can ask for the redirect to be removed (I believe it's currently protected: see WP:SALT) and at least write a stub. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're asking for. --Tkynerd 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Jew discussion page is messy-anic

Is there a protocol to trim down a discussion page that's gotten too big? Maybe it could use a fresh start? TRWBW 03:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Garion96 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive self-promotion

See [1]. Seems to be going to another China-related article every few minutes to add a link to his site. Wouldn't call it spam, and if it had been just one article, I'd just say thanks for the link, but 30+ seems excessive. cab 16:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Nagle, guitarist.

Here's an amusing situation. At John Nagle we have a new article about a guitarist of marginal notability who probably doesn't meet WP:BAND (no CDs on a major label, not in Gracenote, info mostly from musician's own website), and we have a fan who wants an article about him. I ran into this because I have the same name. I put the usual {{db-band}} on the article, and the fan is pleading to keep it. It looks confusing if I work on that article. Would someone else please do that, and explain nicely how many bands and musicians try to get into Wikipedia and are thrown out every day? Thanks. --John Nagle 06:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necroeconomics

I'm having a hard time finding any third-party sources on that. There's a book written by Vladimer Papava (often credited as Vladimir Papava), a professor and former Minister of Economy of Georgia entitled Necroeconomics: The Political Economy of Post-Communist Capitalism (ISBN 0-595-34915-3). User:Vladimer Papava is the sole editor of this and related articles. The problem is that I cannot find citations or other reputable third-party references to "necroeconomics": it seems to be a neologism coined by Mr. Papava himself. I do not believe that User:Vladimer Papava was indeed Mr. Papava: I highly doubt a man of his standing has the time to edit Wikipedia. Mr. Papava probably also has no interest himself to misuse Wikipedia to advertize his book or his ideas. Could someone well-versed in economy look into this? Is this a worthwhile undertaking or just some misguided promotional attempt? Or just a misguided article, representing one man's book (published in 2005) as the ultimate truth on post-communist economics? Lupo 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well... He's apparently also editing as User:80.83.135.90, who worked on the article Vladimer Papava and added links to these neologisms at List of economics topics. Lupo 12:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we have an image problem, with various editors claiming images of Mr. Papava were {{PD-self}}: see Image:Vladimer papava 2.jpg and Image:Vladimer papava.jpg... (User:George Katcharava and User:Temur) Lupo 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest Day

Without going into the minutae of the dispute surrounding this article (which can be seen on the Archives of the Talk Page), Essentially there is one editor who has posted up a diputed tag on the article. This tag was [removed] by an admin with the edit summary One editor disputing the neutrality without reliable sources does not constitute a neutrality dispute and the disputing editor was given a 24 block for disruption (not for the tag per se, but for disruptive edits surrounding the article). The editor backed off from the article for a while, but now has returned and tagged it disputed again. I removed the tag and the disputing editor reinstated it. Essentially there is no new argument here, the editor disputes the reliability of the sources and the neutrality of the article. I opened an RfC on the article when the original dispute was happening, but this garnered almost no input. I don't think the tag is necessary when one editor with a fairly obvious POV to push disputes the article because he doesn't agree with the way the sources are presented. I also don't want to get involved in a pointless edit war of removing and adding the tag or continually going over the arguments for/against the version that is posted right now because I've been down this road already when I tried to engage the editor for discussion about the text and it is a dead end. Basically I'm looking for any advice or input where to go from here since the RfC didn't do much. Mediation seems a bit drastic of a measure for a tag. Is there any other avenue available that someone could recommend?--Isotope23 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User creating his own references

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and I have squabbled in the past about the addition of a long list of alleged New York Times sources to Pillar of Fire Church. These sources, going as far back as 1907, are unverifiable online, and my concern at the time was that that they may have been padded to aid the AfD that was going on at the time. Now Mr.Norton has created his own reference for them by throwing together a quickie webpage at richard.arthur.norton.googlepages.com containing this same alleged NYT info and adding it to the article. Had he added it as a directly cited reference, I would have deleted it immediately, but since he placed it in the "External links" section, I'm putting the question here: doesn't Wikipedia frown on users inserting links to web pages they've created themselves, especially when it seems like the tail is being created to wag the dog? wikipediatrix 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the link per WP:EL. Point 3 in links to be avoided is pretty clearly against adding external links created by the editor adding the link. On the greater question of if this link is an WP:RS for the NYT articles, I would say no. Beyond that the article looks like shit with an excessing farm of every NYT article ever written about the church, even if it is 100% factual and true. Since none if it is a source for the article, I don't see the purpose.--Isotope23 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have clashed with Mr. Norton in the past myself, but I never, ever had any reason to doubt his sources. He appears to have access to many very good archives that either require login or are available only offline. He uses them to create an amazing coverage of obscure people and things often of local interest only to people in New Jersey. I would not think that he invented any of these Time references. They are verifiable after all—by going to a library. But just listing these references again on his own page and linking to that from the WP article is a no-no. (My own clash with him was over image copyrights; he seems to have taken to assert his own copyrights over old images now, using something like "© Richard Arthur Norton archive" and licensing images with unclear PD-status as CC-BY himself. At least, that was the case last time I looked. I'm too tired to fight such nonsense for orphan images that after all might be PD (only we don't know for sure), so I didn't follow through on this one and don't know what he's doing image-wise nowadays.) Lupo 15:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that they're verifiable by going to a library, but I don't think a good Wikipedia article should expect the reader to have to go to a library. (I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of inventing the unclickable articles, but simply pointing out how easy it would be to do, and if one did, who would notice? And if I did go to the library to slog through old microfilm of ancient newspapers and found that one of these NYT articles didn't exist, what then? Would it not be a WP:OR violation to remove it from Wikipedia based on my own trip to the library?) wikipediatrix 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it just would be a failed verification, and you'd remove the wrong reference and possibly take other steps. Otherwise we'd have to ban all off-line references. Lupo 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there is nothing wrong with using offline, hard copy references in an article... likewise there is nothing wrong with vetting existance of sources; this is not WP:OR and has been done in the past ('see Vampire Watermelon). That said, I don't see the purpose of listing 20 or so NYT articles in a resources section when none of them are really used in the article (and there already is an extensive references section). It doesn't really make the article any better.--Isotope23 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to belabor the point here, but: when we have an offline reference to a book, it's usually easy to at least verify that the book exists. But if offline references to ancient and obscure articles are assumed to be valid sources until proven otherwise, what's to stop anyone from placing things like "New York Times; January 28, 1907; pg. SM2. "Alma Smith arrested for public indecency in shocking chicken incident"? And when disputed, it's just one editor's word against another's. wikipediatrix 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to be an encyclopedia that covers more subjects than merely those already available on the internet, we're going to have to accept book and newspaper references that are unavailable online. I believe WP:AGF would also entail assuming people aren't just inventing blatantly mythical old newspaper references. --tjstrf 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And disputing it isn't all that difficult a process. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. If I create an article and base it on a 1908 newspaper, anyone can go to the library and see if what I've said is true. If it is disputed, then really the burden of proving this sources existence is on me as the person basing the article on said source. Particularly in the case of really old newspaper article before the early 1920's (1922 specifically) a scan could be uploaded as evidence of the article's existance as it would be out of copyright... Of course there is potential for someone to come along and make up sources, and it has happend in the past, but it doesn't invalidate the concept of using printed sources, no matter how old.--Isotope23 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So don't assume they're valid sources. Go check it out. If you can't do that, then ask for assistance. Being available only offline doesn't invalidate a source, and doesn't make it any less reliable. (It may affect the reliability of the Wikipedia editor who cited the source, but if the source exists and reports what the editor claims it reports, then there's nothing wrong with the source.) --Rob Kennedy 17:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ProQuest has New York Times references as far back as 1851. Many libraries, schools, and universities offer access to ProQuest and related databases. Just because something isn't available free to the entire world doesn't mean it's not verifiable online. If there's anything in particular you'd like me to verify for you, just let me know and I'd be happy to help. --Rob Kennedy 17:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on references for bios...

Not exactly a hypothetical situation; but wanting to pull it out of context of a specific article...

Joe Somebody is a professor at University of Noplace. He has contributed extensively to the study of micronothingology. He has written many papers and books including: (extensive list here).

He was born in Noplace, graduated from SomeUniversity with a BA in Something in 3045, earned his MA in nothingology from Harvard in 3056, attained his Doctoral degree... Blah blah blah...

References

  • www.Noplace University department of micronothingology.edu
  • www.Jo Somebody's personal webpage.myspace.com
  • www.Experts in Micronothingology.com
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper co-written by Joe Somebody and John Doe
  • Wikipedia article on Micronothingology
  • Wikipedia article on ground-breaking Micronothingology discovery made by Jo Somebody that does not mention Joe Somebody by name.

What do people think? Are those references sufficent for the article? My understanding of notability critera leaves me confused. The guy is obviously notable, but the main notability criteria seems to be that stuff has been published about him. The papers he wrote are about micronothingology, not about him, and all the other references are either about his teaching or his discoveries in the field of micronothingology... in other words, not a single source for the biographical information. Moreover, he links to the homepage of the university, not, say, his profile on the university web site. Is an article that reads like this and is referenced like this properly referenced? I'm confused. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least Wikipedia articles should not be included as references! Rmhermen 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Dr. Somebody made a micronothingology discovery and the Wikipedia article doesn't mention that, then the micronothingology article should be fixed, probably citinig some of those many sources listed here.
In science, writing a lot of papers only makes you notable for being a prolific writer. To be a notable scientist, though, it's not how many papers you've written that matters. It's how many people cite your papers in their own work. If Dr. Somebody has done lots of work in a field that nobody cares about, then he's hardly notable. But if his work is used as the basis for many other people's work, then he's an important contributor to the field.
Since those references listed are papers he wrote, they probably don't contribute much information about him, so they're not very good sources for a Wikipedia article about him. So rather than call them references, provide some of the more important papers as a selected bibliography. But please don't list all the papers he's written; Wikipedia isn't a CV. --Rob Kennedy 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just concuring with what Rmhermen & Rob Kennedy said above. Paper's about someone's research or citing a particular individual's work are a much better indicator of that person's notability in a field. Pertaining to the biographical information, preferably there would be a link in the article to some external source (say a University site bio) that would back up the bio info. I think when it comes to reliable sourcing, a good thing to remember is whether or not the information in question is contentious or not. I think a Uni bio or even a bio on a professor's MySpace is perfectly acceptable for age, year of graduation, schools attended, etc unless there is some sort of question about the subject and the reliability of the claims (even though technically MySpace is about the furthest thing from a WP:RS you can find). Joe Somebody being listed on a profile on the Uni website as getting a PhD at Yale is fine unless there is some sort of evidence this is not the case or has been publically disputed. Text indicating "Joe Somebody is married to Mary Somebody and that they have a dog that they really love" is the kind of thing I'd typically remove though if unsourced because it would be WP:OR; and even if sourced isn't overly important to the discussion of the subject's notability and work. Bottom line though is that in the example you've cited above, I don't think that level of referencing would really have established the notability of the person.--Isotope23 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would remove all but two of the papers, the MySpace, and the Experts in whatever links. Nwwaew(My talk page) 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name help

After the guilty plea of one of the indicted, I was surprised to find that Wikipedia had no articles on the individuals or the event of a transatlantic bombing plot broken up in 2004. I ran up a stub at 2004 Financial buildings plot but that is really a poor title as the financial buildings were all in the U.S. while the UK targets appear not to have been related to finance. Since the individuals were arrested in the UK and, so far, face trial there some acknowledgement of that fact should probably be in the title. Any suggestions? Rmhermen 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of speedy deletion tag

User:Jamesarts won't stop removing the db-copyvio tag from Steven R. Gerber. What now? wikipediatrix 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's fixed. wikipediatrix 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about religious persecution and one of the links at the end of the page was for religioustolerance.org Since this site is run by Scientologists I added a note saying that. While I read a discussion here about whether that site should be quoted at all I felt adding who runs that site should be mentioned so people can use that knowledge in assesing the information available on the site.

Is adding the fact it's run by Scientologists reasonable?

Just by itself, no, I don’t think it’s reasonable. In that article, you simply write, “This site is operated by Scientologists.” So what? You haven’t said why that point is important. As far as I can tell, you’re making a non-trivial claim since after skimming over a few pages, I don’t see any direct connection between Scientology and the group that runs the site, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. --Rob Kennedy 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I initially believed it was run by Scientologist's because the first essay I read was written by a self described Scientologist. But it is was in the Guest section. Then I looked deeper and researched many articles on the site including about 80 percent of the articles that describe various religions and "Spiritualities." They are all written by one man B.A. Robinson except for Scientology. The articles that explain Scientology are writen by Al Buttnor alone or co written by Al Buttnor and B.A. Robinson. Al Buttnor is involved withthe Toronto Chapter of Scientology and he is listed as the contact for Toronto at this webiste [2]

The articles solely written by Al Buttnor are not in the guest section giving the impression he is directly affiliated with religioustolerance.org it's suspicious but the founder B.A Robinson claims he is Unitarian. Though I don't understand why the founder's byline appears alone in articles about everything else but allows a Scientologist to explain Scientology. There are many experts in other religions who could have given insight in their field.

As for the site it claims to be tolerant may be true as it is tolerant of so called religions that practice hatred towards other religions. The Unification Church is the Prime example. The site duefully reports of the Washington Times opinion pieces that are racist and intolerant but never condemns it. Sun Myung Moon made this reference to the Holocaust in 1974.

"By killing one man, Jesus, the Jewish people had to suffer for 2000 years. Countless numbers of people have been slaughtered. During the Second World War, 6 million people were slaughtered to cleanse all the sins of the Jewish people from the time of Jesus." 

Moon also said: My teachings are the keys to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. To open the door, you need to obtain the key from me. If you try any other

means to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, it does not work." (Sun Myung Moon, Today’s World, May/June 1994, p.12)

Although Mr. Robinson condemns some religions that practice violence. As well as religions that murder or incite suicide in it's members such as Solar Temple. He seems to draw the line at violence but hate speech against another religion is okay. Mr. Robinson says there is no indication that the Unification Church is a "Destructive Cult" Despite it's record of hate. Mr Robinson honestly admits he went to a a convention on religious tolerance and freedom in Washington during the 1990's sponsored by the Washington Times and admits the newspaper heavily subsidized his trip. Moon and his Church and the Washington Times were well known to be intolerant and hateful during that time but he still accepted their bribe.

I don't know the complete aims of Mr. Robinson and his website but I am having trouble believing tolerance is one of them. THen again he may be completely sincere but doesn't see the contradictions. He also has a fascination with Pychiatry which has little to do with Religious Intolerance. He seems to be obsessed with Recovered Memory Syndrome and Multiple Personality disorder with many articles critical of it. While there are probably good reason to be skeptical of those topic he can't even be unbiased in an article that claims to present both sides of the case.

Dr. Bennett Braun was one of the former leaders in the MPD/DID field. (He has since been expelled from the Illinois Psychiatric Society and the American Psychiatric Association, apparently for ethics violations.) I'm sure he could have found a proponent that didn't have ethical lapses but he didn't. Psychiatry is something Scientogists are against.

Mr. Robinson seems very deicated about his website having written many thousands of articles for it. But his objectivity is suspect and it takes the time to wade through all the articles to see it. He can't be considered a reliable source despite the fact he will present negative information about certain subjects and give footnotes where they come from.

He should not be used as external link. As for your point about adding what organization operates a website. It doesn't need to be explained if it's a fact. Knowing a website that doesn't state who really runs it is enough. Readers can make a judgement about objectivity. If a website about racial tolerance was operated by the KKK that's relevant by itself and doesn't need further explanation as to why it's importnat as you suggest.

But then that hypotetical site should not be referenced in Wikipedia. Neither should Mr. Robinson's site with help from Al Buttner. religioustolerance.org

Thanks for you comments it made me look more closely and learned I shouldn't go off half cocked but do in depth research.

I hope I have used this section of the village pump properly but was just trying to acknowledge the point made by my esteemed collegue and add more infor to buttress my argument.

Thank you

My apologies for posting this - I'm having trouble finding a template for Authors

I have templates for Fictional Characters and Novels but in spite of searching Village Pump topics, using the search engine (both Wikipedia's and Google), looking at the FAQ, going over a list of all the templates and trying various other things, I have not managed to find a template for creating an article about an author.

As a side note, wouldn't it be easier if you could find a template to create an article by entering a search query?

I believe your are looking for Template:Infobox Writer. Do what I do - if in doubt go look at a famous example that is probably lovingly fan maintained - i.e. Stephen King. Megapixie 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for feedback on Wikipedia:Contents and related pages, most of which should be listed at Category:WikiProject Reference pages. The purpose of this "project" is to develop a set of comprehensive yet highly usable "Wikipedia Contents" pages suitable for the Main Page and sidebar. Please give feedback related to topics such as content, usability, and presentation. Think about what should be added, deleted or rearranged on the main page, supporting pages, and the header and footer navigation templates. Also, more contributing editors are very welcome to dig in and help spruce things up. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 15:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I place inline citation for all the information in a table?

I have recently learnt how to format references and tables.

Now I need assistance with an unusual situation involving both references and tables.

In the article I Not Stupid, the Cast section consists of a table. I have found a reference for the information in the entire table.

The question is: in which cell should I place the inline citation?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could do it like this:

According to Raintree Pictures production notes,[#] the main characters of the movie were played by the following actors:

In other words, introduce the table with a complete sentence, and put the citation somewhere in the sentence.
Also, I encourage you to use the {{cite web}} template and related templates when you make <ref> citations. That way, if a link ever goes dead, we still have useful information about where the information came from, which we could use to replace the reference with another. (They also make for more pleasant-looking lists, instead of just a list of URLs.) --Rob Kennedy 07:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Organism

I would like to ask anyone with the knowledge and time, to please look at this page: Largest Organism. There are a large number of glaring inaccuracies. I have tagged the page to reflect this, as have others to the best of my knowledge. Thank you very much in advance. John Doe or Jane Doe 12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct title is at Largest organism. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now created the redirect page. –RHolton≡– 11:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as international phenomenon

Can I get some input on this? It's my contention that the title of this article is POV, and I suggested it be moved to something like "International popularity of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", but the discussion on the Talk page is going nowhere. It's not like I have a great deal of heartburn over the title, but it does seem hyperbolic. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locating history page of deleted article

I am trying to locate the history page of an article that was removed back in March or April 2006. A search for the term reveals no article, and thus no history page. Is there a way to locate history pages of articles that have been deleted?

David

Admins have access to the history of deleted pages if there's a need. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Yes and no. Administrators can sometimes view and unlock such history pages, but not always. They prefer to have a good reason for doing so. Non-administrators cannot view such history pages without the help of administrators. As a non-admin, you can request help with this at Deletion review. Look at the undeletion policy for more information. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with trivia problems?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here goes.. I've noticed for a while now, a serious issue with trivia. I've read the Wikipedia trivia pages (on how trivia shouldn't be in articles, and all that), but I need more help. I've created a project for it, but it doesn't seem to be helping alot (since only a few people have joined so far). What can be done to help this issue out? It seems like just about any episode article for shows like South Park, Simpsons and so on... have insanely huge trivia sections due to fan's posting every little detail on the show. I'm certainly no expert on all the shows, so I can't just easily clean the trivia and put it in the article itself all the time. Anyone care to help? RobJ1981 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering how beneficial it is to try and weed out all of that trivia? There's already a deletion process for dumping non-notable pages. I think it is more beneficial (right now) to work on enhancing the substantive topics than to try and eliminate such trivial content. As long as the subject matter is far down the category tree, only somebody who is searching for specific information on those topics is likely to come upon it. (Unless they are searching at random.) If they are searching for it, then the information is of some importance to them and it's just as well to keep it. The one aspect of trivia I don't much care for is when such sections show up in otherwise solid, core topics. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's helpful because once trivia is cleaned up, the article looks much better. It's not just a summary or some information, followed by a huge list of other notes on the subject. In many cases, there is trivia sections that are much larger than the main text of the article itself. Just because it's a favorite thing of someone, doesn't mean they should add extra cruft to it. Every little note isn't needed. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan's trivia guide. RobJ1981 04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fixing dab links for Swedish and Norwegian. After some initial hesitation, I have settled on using piped links to Sweden and Norway respectively when the adjectives refer to nationality; this is because Swedish people and Norwegian people explicitly treat ethnic Swedes and Norwegians -- someone who is from Sweden or Norway, or who lives there, may or may not be ethnically Swedish or Norwegian (example). I've been challenged on this in at least one case, and now I'm wondering whether there are any WP guidelines on this. (Just looked in the MoS and didn't find anything.) Other serious thoughts on the issue would also be welcome. Thanks. --Tkynerd 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blatant incivility

What's the procedure here? 85.214.28.144 has been repeatedly making POV edits to Template:ScientologySeries rather abruptly and aggressively this month after only making six edits since November 2005, but the more flagrant disregard for Wikipedia is in the user's edit summaries, in which he accuses other editors of being sockpuppets for no apparent reason, and refers to other editors with terms like "autistic", "creep", and "use a braincell or two". [3] Isn't there something that can be done about such blatant incivility? The user has already been warned on their talk page. wikipediatrix 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROPE

The article on prope seems to have been deleted. First off, I can't find any reasons for why it was deleted, or any archives of the article. Secondly, there are numerous other links to the article (Sonic 2006, Yuji Naka, Sonic Team...) what should happen with these? 81.137.159.61 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log indicates that it was an expired prod, meaning a proposed deletion notice was placed on it for the requisite five days. If you want the article to be undeleted, a request can be placed at WP:DRV#Proposed_deletions. Hope that helps.--Kchase T 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be put up again for discussion – Yuji Naka is one of the most prominent games developers in the world, so the fact he has started a games company should be recorded somewhere, especially as I believe they’ve announced active development on a project (My Japanese isn’t good enough to verify this.) Whether this should be it’s own article, or in Yuji Naka’s entry, I don’t know. But at the moment, there’s a lot of dead links and missing information that should be fixed. 81.137.159.61 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rectus abdominis muscle

On Rectus abdominis muscle, could aowmone sort the infobox out. All the text is squashed down the right side. (Classic skin). -- SGBailey 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signautre and Formatting

Hi - I have two questions:

  • I've noticed differences when people do headings. Some use ==This== yet others do == This ==. Does this make a differences and is one preffered to the other?
  • I recently finished making my signature, but it is rather long in code. Should I shorten it? Here is the complete code: <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">[[User:0L1|<font color="#0000FF">0L1</font>]] - [[User_talk:0L1|<font color="#FF0000">Talk</font>]] - [[Special:Contributions/0L1|<font color="#0000FF">Contribs</font>]] - <font color="#FF0000">19:58</font> <font color="#0000FF">October</font> <font color="#FF0000">17</font> <font color="#0000FF">2006</font> <font color="#FF0000">(UTC)</font></span>

Thanks for the help - 0L1 - Talk - Contribs - 19:58 October 17 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do shorten that. It's kind of big. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I've had to deal with repeated vandalism to my user page. I want to know what people think I should do, short of locking it.

I can't monitor it 24/7.

Any advice? Any solutions? Scalene 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your userpage to my watchlist and I'll revert any vandalism I see. I'm sure a couple of other people will be kind enough to do the same. On a more effective note if it's IP's doing the damage, then you could always try requesting semi-protection. Megapixie 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. How should I go about requesting semi-protection? Scalene 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checkout WP:SPP. Goodluck. Megapixie 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Help with Userbox picture

Hey can anyone tell me how to put a picture in my Userbox?A7X 900 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of examples at Wikipedia:Userboxes Megapixie 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you but my problem is the size of my picture. Every time I get it in my Userbox it's huge, and not the right size. I really need some help with that.A7X 900 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Severe Userpage Vandalism

Look, I'm being attacked by an IP. I semi-protected the user page, and, now, they're using the talk page.

Can someone please ban these IPs? I'm putting it here, because it'll be destroyed by morning. I really need action now. Or protect the userpage? I've put in a request for semi-protection, because this is just the first of many. It's getting really, really, really annoying. I can't help out with this happening.

Also, another thing. Can someone please look out for any pages named tornis, torni or Christopher Tornatore? There's no need for them to be created. So, if the links are blue, it's a sign of vandalism.

Scalene 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. He's not going to stop unless he's banned or the page is protected. I'm struggling not to feed him, so, please help me out here. Otherwise, I'll do something I regret. Scalene 10:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out the questions about Wikipedia to help me on my College paper about Wikipedia

Interviewee Sheet
Hello, my name is Sarah. I am doing a paper for my English 1301 class. In my paper I have to have an interview. So If you could answer the questions below. I will check my post daily. Thank You --70.185.81.231 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Sarah[reply]

  1. Can any one edit anything on wikipedia, what are the limitations and the securities they apply to keep Wikipedia credible?
  2. How long have you used Wikipedia, and What programs have you found useful and why?
  3. What do you think about the controversy about Wikipedia's crediability?
  4. Is there anything on Wikipedia that could be useful for a College Student?

One user's terse responses

  1. Yes, with certain exceptions. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is key here; it requires that information must be sourced from reliable sources, which should be cited.
  2. I've edited Wikipedia for a bit over two years. I don't really end up using much beyond my web browser and (occasionally) a plain text editor; however, some users find tools such as AutoWikiBrowser handy for certain tasks.
  3. I personally think that most of the controversy is bunk; the verifiability policy more or less covers that. Occasionally, some incorrect or biased information will slip in, but it's usually corrected - especially when it's on a topic that matters, as those tend to be more closely watched.
  4. Yes, there is quite a bit. A lot of the science and math pages can serve as an excellent quick reference, for example, and a lot of the historical articles (biographies in particular) can work as a nice jumping-off point for more in-depth research. If you're trying to do in-depth research, Wikipedia definitely shouldn't be your only source of information, but it can still work as a good starting point for further investigation.

Best of luck on your paper. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Durova

1. I suppose this question is intended to mean Since anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia, what limitations and security measures protect Wikipedia's credibility? Wikipedia has several policies and guidelines. Most problem behavior falls into two categories. One is people who experiment just to see if they can edit a page by typing something inane such as, "Josh loves Callie." That sort of edit gets reverted pretty quickly, often by automatic bot. Users sometimes do this a couple of times before becoming productive editors, so other editors usually hand out warnings and encourage useful contributions. An editor who persists in vandalizing pages can get blocked, and in some cases gets blocked indefinitely. The other common problem is when people create pages that don't fit within Wikipedia's mission - one recurrent example is garage bands. Regular editors nominate these pages for deletion, often shortly after they're created. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution exists for the more complex problems that crop up from time to time.

2. I made my first edit in October 2005. I don't really use bots or programs to edit or use Wikipedia.

3. Wikipedia is only five years old and the majority of its user accounts have been registered within the last twelve months - so it isn't reasonable to expect perfection. On the positive side, Wikipedia's best articles are impressive. Compare the featured article Pericles to the comparable article at The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition and Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia's article is far more detailed and contains 162 line citations, while neither of the others have line citations at all. Unlike those other sites, visitors can read Wikipedia's article without popups, banner ads, or subscription fees. Wikipedia's size and flexibility make it a repository for referenced information that may not be covered in a comprehensive manner elsewhere. One such example, which is currently receiving unanimous support as a featured list candidate, is List of HIV-positive people. Now this sort of quality does not extend throughout the project. One example of a page I regard as unreliable is Cattle mutilation. The article talk page, where I responded to a request for comment last month, details some of the problems.

4. There's quite a bit on Wikipedia that could be useful for a college student. Yet I'd caution per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation that there are very few situations where a college student should quote Wikipedia in a term paper. This exercise, where Wikipedia itself is the subject, is one of those exceptions. In most situations Wikipedia is a good first stop for research - but only as a launching point for further research that eventually references other sources. Durova 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:tjstrf's reply

1. Yes, anyone can edit anything... almost. The defenses against inaccuracy in Wikipedia are threefold:

  • On the ideological level, we have content policies which dictate coverage must be neutral and verifiable. Most disputes over content between editors can be solved through the application of these policies.
  • On the software level, we protect a few pages that have severe disputes taking place over their content from editing by anyone but administrators. We also semi-protect some of our more high-traffic pages, a system that makes them uneditable by anonymous users. (Similarly, many of our template pages --pages which are used to format other pages-- are protected or semi-protected since unnecessary changes to them would result in thousands and thousands of pages being effected.)
  • On the personal level, since any editor can change any page, additions of blatant inaccuracy, nonsense, or libel can be promptly dealt with. This is the most important safeguard of all to Wikipedia's accuracy.

We also are considering the implementation of some sort of "stable version" system, in which articles which have reached a decent level of quality will have a selected revision displayed by default to users who are not logged in.

2. I've edited Wikipedia for approximately 1 year. The only tool I regularly use is a javascript add-on to the Wiki software called popups, which allows one to preview an article by hovering the mouse over a link to that article. Another group of tools which I do not personally use but appreciate greatly are the various "anti-vandal bots", a group of automated and semi-automated programs which revert most cases of simple vandalism (e.g. someone replacing a page with 425 repetitions of the word fuck.) within seconds of their entry.

3. Mostly overblown. There are always a few pages where a particularly extremist editor may attempt to control an article, but these are few and far between and quickly dealt with once brought to the attention of the wider community. The other much lambasted characteristic of wikipedia, biography pages with unsourced negative information on them, is being actively dealt with by new policies which require much tighter standards of verifiability on biography pages than other articles.

4. Very much so. Many of our foreign history articles, for instance, benefit from the open-source nature of Wikipedia and contain a more globalized view than a traditional encyclopedia would. In general, Wikipedia makes an excellent starting point for research, though you should be cautious about using it as a citation in a paper. In my own experiences, I have had two college professors who allowed and promoted the use of Wikipedia as a reference, and one who refused to allow internet references of any sort that were not simple republications of offline works, so I would definitely recommend you ask your instructor before attempting to cite Wikipedia in a project.

Best of luck to you,

--tjstrf 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A non-reply

This threatens to become a large and unwieldy chunk of a page that is not primarily intended for a purpose such as this. So I'm sorry if I seem to be a spoilsport but I'm not going to respond to your questions here. I suggest that you get a username for yourself (very easy), post your questionnaire on your talk page, and post a note here saying that you have done this. When I see that note, I'll go to your talk page and answer your questions there. -- Hoary 00:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating your own username

I support Hoary's suggestion to create your own username. You also can check out the introduction for more help. Good luck. Rfrisbietalk 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also would (and did on the talk page for your IP address) recomend that you get a username, and I will gladly respond to your questions on your new talk page when you do. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On improving guidance to editors reverting vandalism

I have searched around for how to properly revert and warn IPs and user/editors that vandalize articles.
Let's just say that using the numerous {{test}} templates has been non-obvious, and documentation for the innocent user that cares to bother to do this so that an administrator later on knows some IP address is consistently causing trouble is surprisingly hard to discover. Especially since it's a big deal for the few who attend to it all the time--administrators, which I am not. I'm not even sure where the best forum to bring this up may be, since there are dozens of templates, and it appears to me, no central discussion area for the various templates.
As for properly indicating a revert, and to which previous page a revert is taken back to, and who was "blamed" and which past post was considered "reliable"--something I don't think I have managed to comment correctly in one out of five times, and I have yet to encounter an advisory on what reccomended text is desirable. It is not a simple affair to do this correctly (and if there's an easy way to do this process, I have not seen that either).

Needed are:

  • usable instructions on the many "test" warning template pages (how exactly to insert the article name (and date?), when this is possible, is almost invisible--this ought to be on the template page itself, instead of hiding in the talk page, shouldn't it?)
  • a category that leads to documentation of how to use the multi-part and commentable "test" templates.
  • easy access (perhaps a category?) to documetation outlining what the comment should be on a revert for vandalism.

Am I missing several guidance pages that already exist?
Yellowdesk 05:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Password change spam

I just got some twenty or so emails informing me that an anonIP had tried to change my password. I'm being mailbombed. Where do I go for a remedy? Zora 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no remedy for them. They wont affect your password. Just ignore them. A remedy was requested at bugzilla. Will post the link if I can find it -- Lost(talk) 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)&oldid=82592026"