This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
I figured I'd ask here since none of the other possible talk pages have been very active, if at all.
I'm currently embroiled in a tiresome argument with Noroton (talk · contribs) (see our respective talk pages) over the fact I moved his List of mammals in Connecticut to List of mammals of Connecticut. Long story short, the only reason most lists in Category:Regional mammals lists are at "in" is that I haven't gotten around to move them (they were generated by bot in 05 or 06). Otherwise, lists of organisms are at "of", but he's now arguing that because lists in general (as opposed to the relevant topical lists) have both "in" and "of", I can't argue against placing this list at "in". Can anybody try to weigh in? Circeus (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit, there's a case to be made for "of", based on my idea that we should make the names uniform so readers can easily guess what the name would be. Would the readers we want to serve be familiar with the similar Flora, Fauna, Bird and Reptile "List X-species by Y-geography" articles? Most of them use "of" rather than "in": Category:Regional reptiles lists, Category:Fauna by country, Category:Fish by region, Category:Birds by country, Category:Regional bird lists, Category:Molluscs by country, Category:Biota by country, Category:Flora by country, Category:Trees by country. The other editors commenting here make excellent points as well, and outside of these species lists, "in" is much more common. As of this point, count me neutral. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some sections showing lists of stubs which I personally think is really unnecessary. Since the list is really long, I'm thinking to remove ALL the lists of stubs since it looks like there's no way to put up eg. [[Category:Sabah geography stubs]] showing right on the texts, but if there is, please enlighten me. — Yurei-eggtart 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
hi my name is amit. i m having win vista ultimate. when i burn any disc (DVD/CD).it is burned but when i insert it back it does not work. but inserted on another pc it works but at slower speed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit301 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that whoever was attempting to correct an error on the Aitken crater article yesterday has inadvertently deleted most of the article. [2]
Can the article be recovered? How would I request this? Bonnie108 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC) --Bonnie108 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I claim "fair use" if I upload these three pictures [3][4][5] of aircraft in Reeve Aleutian livery for use in the Reeve Aleutian Airways article, where the copyright holder has granted permission? (evidence here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added them, with copyright notice and fair use rationale, all seems ok. Thanks for advice. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have intentions to retire as a contributor to video game articles, but having uploaded a large collection of fair use images for two years, I do not want to be burdened by the prospect of bot messages inundating my talk page whenever mass deletions of the images are imminent. I have thoughts about removing all fair use images before leaving, but given limitations of the right to vanish, which declares removal of certain works to be disruptive, it's not clear what I should do now. Large portions of images uploaded are now violating Wikipedia's fair use policies, and I have witnessed one user vanishing along with fair use images uploaded by the user. Any ideas? ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ ╫ 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm still doubtful whether or not to opt for deletion of all of my images in tandem with my retirement. - ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ ╫ 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am attempting to get this article to featured article status but am concerned that it will get hit with comprehensiveness objections if I do not include all the pertinent missionary variants. On the other hand, there are hundreds of sex positions, many of which bear a slight resemblance to missionary, and I don't want to have too many false positives (i.e. Type I statistical errors). Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Missionary position/archive1 and Talk:Missionary_position#More_missionaryish_positions for more details. Any insight you can provide as to what criteria might be used to evaluate whether a position is indeed a subset of missionary will be appreciated. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that Wikipedia is a work in progress and it's up to all of us to improve it. However, this particular topic is a special case requiring more and/or different attention than it has received over the last 4.5 yrears. It is chronically and utterly unreferenced and filled with dubious original research and occasional spurts of edits reflecting fixation on fetishistic topics (like "Wet clothing"). It like a mini-culture dish showing the worst side of Wikipedia. This unfortunate state has persisted and indeed flourished at least since 8 Aug 2003, so I can no longer believe that time will straighten it all out. It needs the attention of a real editor - or IMHO, it should be deleted or severely cut back. Thanks for high level editing attention or encouragement at least. NuclearWinner (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of over the top discussion going on, concerning the merging of seperate articles into the minor chaacters article. I think independent users need to review the discusions and value the arguments on meris. Chase Edmunds, Mike Doyle (24 character), Lynn McGill are just a couple.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not here discus things as if people win and lose, we are here to discuss based on policy and guidelines. I would also like to point out that administrators are not the "gods" of wikipedia, they are just users who have administrative perks. The only people who are authority on wikipeida are the board of directors and Jimbo Wales. Please see WP:DEAL for Jimbo Wales' pesonal views on administrators.
I have come here to try and garner indepenedent views on the isuue and I am not willing to engage in personal attacks towads any user. WP:CON has allready been mentioned and sections quoted rendering the above arguments as moot. I would also like to point out that an independent uses has said that the pages best belong on a seperate wiki and they fail to meet the "significant coverage" required by WP:NOTABILITY/WP:FICTION.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly recommended cooling off on the issue. We're trying to improve WP:FICT so there's a part that's not yet in there, and that is the fact that there is no rush to delete or merge articles - as long as there is good faith efforts to try to improve them, let the editors have a shot at working it out. If, say, in a month, they have no luck, or there are no further attempts (including discussions on talk page) to improve them, then a merge discussion is appropriate. In their present state, they do fail notability and a single list is a much better idea; they need a lot of real-world context to help and from that, trimming of the plot information for each, and one should also consider that there may be better notability demonstrated for the entire cast or a sub-set of the characters than for an individual characters. --MASEM 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
archaeoastronomy What's happening here? What to do about it? Insert: – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your username: 207.107.246.140 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please state your problem clearly and then we might be able to help. SpinningSpark 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article Bali Starling has a number of photographs that credit the pic creator in the caption. I am pretty sure this is against Wikipedia style but I don't see anywhere that says don't do it (other than the rule against signing in article space). I am not sure what to do about this, if anything. Any suggestions? SpinningSpark 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to delete large chunks of the MetroPCS artticle. I thought of proposing it for deletion at first but then I thought that was too extreme. The section I have in mind are Plans which boils down to a price list and Commercials. I would like another opinion first in case I am still being too extreme. SpinningSpark 11:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to get some discussion going on the Request for Deletion page, and I have attempted to follow the instructions, but I guess my brain is just too feeble to understand them. I have already posted the required notice on the page I want deleted — The Strand (bicycle path) — so now I just want it put onto the RFD page, too. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it appopriate to add its school anthem into a school article? I mean, any copyright problems or whatever thingy that's not cool about that? Thanks. — Yurei-eggtart 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. However, like what Corvus cornix said (and what I've understood now), there would be violation of copyright if school song is posted up (with exception: read above). So how do I know if the anthem is under a free licence? Is it possible if I ask permission from the school authorities to post the school anthem and pledge up here (if so, how to prove that permission is granted)? — Yurei-eggtart 13:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned about something. I haven't asked the wider community's support or advice before in this regard, mostly as I have been lucky to be able to help others more, but I need it now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read and advise |
---|
Wikipedia is an amazing project and I have enjoyed participating enormously over the last 3 and 1/2 years. People of all backgrounds come together despite their differences, to contribute to a project that can only manifest by the active and volunteer participation for a common good that is larger and more relevant than what could be achieved by a single person, for-profit company, or organization. To achieve this, an ability to step back is needed. All of us come with our own baggage and personal interests, jobs, hobbies, beliefs, personal feelings to others, political inclinations, and the like. We come with these, and yet, we mutually and communally agree we will each leave them at the sign-in screen, so that the project can benefit from our contributions, while pursuing the creation of excellent articles that are informative, accurate, and neutral. Some of us, who have strong beliefs, opinions, and inclinations, may be challenged to edit these subjects, realizing we walk a fine line between our commitments to our beliefs and opinions, and our commitment to the project and the principles it embodies. Myself, I am affiliated with a group, I have my own interests, hobbies, and I have disclosed them in my user page, and have set them aside. In these articles in which I find myself challenged in this regard, I have adopted a behavior to disclose COI and contribute via talk page discussions, offering sources and insight for others to consider, and ensure that statements are accurate. Yesterday I was contacted by a UK journalist known for his anti-Wikipedia articles, who stated his intent to publish an article, based on allegations made against me off-wiki in one of the anti-Wikipedia blogs (WR), by people that oppose my beliefs and practices. Needless to say, these allegations are false and defamatory. Before this article is published, I would like to ask for feedback from the community, and take seriously whatever advice the community may want to give. If it is true that I have edited and contributed to Wikipedia well, then it is an off-wiki drama and I'll not bring it on site. It may be hard though if I ignore it and leave it off-wiki, only to see the community take it up and myself bound to say nothing to defend myself in order to avoid drama. Those who know me in WP know of my commitment to the project, also know that I avoid unnecessary drama that detracts from our ability to edit the encyclopedia. So its possible I'm wrong. But I'm concerned enough to want to check. I hope this will be forgiven if I have misjudged the concerns. |
No support You get a vote of no support from me, as you have tried previously to block my insertions of academic material into articles concerning a corporations some have referred to as a cult. In your last act on the Landmark Education page, you were in the process of removing an academic article. You are heavily involved in the "cult aplogist" scene for lack of a better term, and fight objectivity and any forms of criticism. --Pax Arcane 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Support - I have had a number of occasions to observe your work as an editor and admin over the last 16 months that I have been editing on Wikipedia. In all honesty, I have always admired your contributions, and your willingness to go the "extra mile" in helping out people who needed technical advice or assistance in dispute resolutions. Hang in there, you have many who support you! Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Support - A factually inaccurate editorial obviously written just to create sensationalism and drive traffic to the website. The influence of one editor on Wikipedia is grossly misrepresented. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - Wikipedia gets attacked daily by people who either don't know how it works, or find its consensus methodology offensive, or both. It is interesting how many journalists, in particular, seem to find the democratization of knowledge disturbing. Perhaps they fear losing their power as opinion setters? As far as your COI goes, I think you acted entirely in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines, at least as I understand them. And advice? The old Australian (I think) motto: Nil illegitimus carborundum. (Don't let the bastards grind you down.) Rumiton (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
'No Support - Just looking at your talk page contributions to the articles this revolves around makes it clear you have shall we say very one sided views. You have made summary deletions of content when others asked for more discussion and in my opinion shoukd stay away from these articles. I myself have witnessed the Regster's negative style but in this cae I agree with them. While drawing on the knowledge of users is positive, in such emotive cases where neutrality will be so hard to maintain (writing about ones own guru) I think you need to step aside and work on other areas of WP. I would support a COI reccomendation on making nothing beyond grammar/antivandalism edits to articles about ones own faith etc. ora (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No Support - In your response to the article, you say "Finally, I believe I have acted in full transparency." You have not. As the Register article says, "he acknowledges a connection to Rawat on his Wikipedia user page. But he won't say how deep this connection goes ...". In your response, you say "I am not interested in disclosing any further personal information as disaffected former students, such as the people he used as a source, have in the past manipulated the media and harassed me and other students." But you are not being asked to disclose your home address or phone number; you're being asked to say whether or not you ever worked in Rawat's office, and when you took the "related position" that you disclosed you had. Neither of these facts is going to affect any future harassment, and as for "media manipulation", the belief here at Wikipedia - I think - is that the more information that is made available to everyone, the less power the media has to distort information. In short, despite the many errors in the Register's article, the core facts about what you did as an editor seem undisputed - and, at minimum, show a failure to disclose material information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No Support - If the influence of one editor is misrepresented why exactly you should be editing this?
No support: The Jossi in the the Register's article matches the Jossi here in Wikipedia, the Jossi that ignores all rules, blasts editors for actions that he himself engages in, and promotes the general lack of science in articles. Nobody doubts your commmitment to WP, and it would be foolish to doubt your status within the editors of WP. It is clear that you have a COI, a COI what has had other editors blocked and salted. Why cannot you see the COI for the trees. In addition you promote that you only follow consensus, well the consensus is that you should withdrawl from articles that you may have a COI with. I suggest that you do so. Shot info (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support The article in The Register was a deplorable piece of gutter journalism, packed with inaccurate and tendentious claims, that was defamatory to wikipedia and defamatory to Jossi. Jossi has clearly made an enormous contribution to innumerable articles and been helpful to countless fellow-editors. He has also shown great dignity in the face of slurs and personal attacks. Unlike many of his detractors - who hide behind a cloak of anonymity and refuse to declare their interests - he has the courage to be up-front with his identity and his viewpoint. DaveApter (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Jossi has seemed fair and level-headed in the face of controversy. Spacefarer (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please Resign - best thing you can do for the long-term conflict of interest you have shown here. 74.233.86.244 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No Support - COI must prohibited one from any and all involvement in the editing of any articles on that COI subject matter. It is not a personal issue of whether one can or cannot stay neutral in this regard. The mere fact that there is a COI is an automatic disqualification. Look at the business world and even politics for the laws and regulations ito COI. Why should Wikipedia claim to be different in this regard!? This type of thing only hurts the reputation and tarnish the image of Wikipedia. --196.25.25.68 (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find an essay that I read on wikipedia once that describe how wiki-articles naturally tend to just list random information rather than grow into cohesive prose. Anybody know what I'm talking about? Wrad (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this what you are looking for [6] ? SpinningSpark 21:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
On Template:2007-08 NHL season by team, I am trying to change the background colors for the groups. So, the color for Atlantic, Northeast, and Southeast should be background-color:#E32636;color:#FFFFFF;
and for Central, Northwest, and Pacific it should be background-color:#00285D;color:#FFFFFF;
. The reason is the first three are for the Eastern Conference, and the colors are Red and White, and the Western Conference colors are Blue and White.
I've used the paramater groupstyle =
, but it is only letting me use one color for all of them. Any ideas? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
2007-08 NHL season by team | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
Is there a conclusion about using non-free logos of sports teams in the article about a league? Example: Image:Birminghammagicians.jpg. I just wrote a fair use rationale for the article Birmingham Magicians (the team itself) which seems fine. But how about the use in Blue Conference? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with more experience than I have editing SVG files please go to commons:Image:Stephankiez.svg and see if you can remove the big black box? Thanks! —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a suggestion to split this list that the new lists will be like this: "List of schools in state, Malaysia". (You're welcomed to join the discussion too xD) I'm asking here is that, IF this article is splitted, then what to do with the original article (List of schools in Malaysia)? Speedy delete? — Yurei-eggtart 06:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A user who had all his socks blocked wasn't logged in and removed all the sock tags from his socks' userpages. He'd like to know why, if the sock has been blocked (or "dead" as he calls it), why he can't remove the tags. I had reverted the anon changes as unexplained, besides which it looks like he's trying to cover his tracks, but there's no provision in the guidelines for the permanence or removal of such tags, is there? I think the tags should stay, but there seems to be no guideline regarding this that I can show him. Any help appreciated, thanks! Cross-posted from Template talk:Sockpuppet Katr67 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest reporting it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents were they will a) be more knowledgeable of policy and b) likely to take immediate action against the perp. SpinningSpark 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Our page at Marlon Brando, Sr. is pretty much a copy of his page at imdb, but I can't tell which came first. How do we handle cases like this? Corvus cornixtalk 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has used an early 20th century reference to document an argument about the current position of a group. In fact, throughout the subsection. I suspect there is a template someplace that suggests a more current reference be used. I've looked for one in vain. Is there such a template? Thanks.Student7 (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is from Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, which is marked as 'historical.' I think there are some discussion threads about use of the 1911 Britannica where they warn about old sources and earlier-generation POV. Some digging might turn them up. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Some sources are generally unacceptable for use as references in Wikipedia: ... An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.
I have created a guide to assessing the risk of Wikipedia articles (especially for the use of researchers) as a subpage of my userpage at User:Billscottbob/riskassessment. It is not completely complete and I would like the help of other editors. I do not know how to proceed. Do I make it an essay or propose it as a guideline? I feel its not precisely either, so how do I proceed? I could leave it in my userspace but I would prefer it if it recieved greater attention so that it could grow. Any suggetions welcome. Thanks. Billscottbob (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone figure out what happened here? The table is disastrously screwed up. Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
User:SevenMass has reorganized the Talk page of 4X game, reorganizing the threads by topic instead of date. If you look at the time stamps, you'll notice that a lot of the threads are out of chronological order. I was wondering if it were proper to revert this and leave a warning on the user's Talk page. Or, is reorganizing Talk pages in this way an OK practice. SharkD (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noted that there are articles on Italian names, French names, German names, Spanish names etc, but no article on English names. This seems like a major gap, so much so that I'm hesitant to start filling the gap, as surely someone must already have thought of it, in which case its absence must be because of some policy decision having been taken. Any thoughts on this? --rossb (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was just making sure my converted avi file works in ogg theora. It doesn't want to work with my codec in WMP, but it seems to work fine on Wikipedia. Here it is: Smartboard.ogg. Thanks! --Weatherman1126 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am the principal author of the Interchange fee page, which I overhauled nearly a year ago now. After a vandal came through some months ago, and was successfully rebuffed, the administrator Georgewilliamherbert put a lock on the page.
However, it appears that his lock has something to do with the page being derived in some part on another article entirely. Well, this was indeed once the case. That's why I rebuilt it from the ground up. It is no longer based on this original page, so I believe this lock is in order.
The real problem now, however, is I cannot get a response from this admin. I have posted on his talk page once and then twice, the second time letting him know I would eventually come ask someone here for assistance if he didn't respond in a timely manner. Well, it's been about a month since I first asked and it looks like my request is not the only one being ignored.
All I ask: would somebody please unprotect the Interchange fee page? --Livefeeordie (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone added the following comment to Talk:Balanced ternary:
I removed this from the article as it is obviously original research. However it is quite a nice notation, so I would like to be able to tell him here he can publish it. Would "Wikimedia Commons", or "Wikiversity" be suitable?