Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive Z

Definitions
Knowledge requires definitions. There are two roads that wikipedia can go down. When I first came to the site I saw its potential for the latter. Now I am beginning to have doubts. What good is a compendium of human knowledge that can't tell you what a compendium is? If you want a list of three letter abbreviations however...
 * 1) It can become a database of usless unimportant articles that have novelty appeal.
 * 2) It can become a compendium of human knowledge which not only gathers vast amounts of information but presents this information in the most comprehensive organized way.

Think about it. Bensaccount 23:38, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a compendium of human knowledge, and it doesn't aim to be one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Perl 23:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I added the hyperlink to encyclopedia. Bensaccount 23:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That was rash, I dont want a hurried response...I want this to follow the second road. Bensaccount 23:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What you should consult when you want to know the meaning of a word, is a dictionary. Mkweise 23:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mkweise -- If Wikipedia tried to be both a dictionary for every conceivable word in the English language and the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia, it would be twice as hard to maintain at the very least. Ben, I suggest looking at encyclopedias in print -- you'll see that they do not attempt word definitions (except in cases where the aim of the definition is encyclopedic -- we should define "nation" because there is something to say about varying perspectives, change over time, meaning in political and social contexts, etc., but not "numb" because defining an adjective like that is a dictionary's task). Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nation vs. numb: there is something to say about varying perspectives, change over time, meaning in political and social contexts, etc. for each. The real difference is that for numb these are well defined whereas for nation they remain less clear.

If everything defined was taken out, where would we be? Bensaccount 00:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ben, all I can say is this. For centuries, educated people have used a dictionary and an encyclopedia for different purposes -- we expect and need different information from each work.  Wikimedia supports an encyclopedia and a dictionary.  You are (we all are) welcome to work on them both.  I don't see any compelling need to combine the two, and plenty of reasons why not to combine them (involving logistics, aims, scope, etc.).  Jwrosenzweig 00:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The best explanation of the difference is probably this quotation from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (a good talk page to peruse, Ben, if this is important to you) -- "A dictionary entry will describe the meaning of a word and perhaps its pronunciation and its origin. An encyclopaedia entry should describe not only these things (in the case of words) but go further and discuss significance, history, effects, related concepts and so on. There is much more meat in an encyclopaedia article than in a dictionary article." If you can make an encyclopedia article about a word, I say make one.  If you can't, we don't. Jwrosenzweig 00:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "An encyclopaedia entry should describe ... these things." Then everything in a dictionary should be in an encyclopedia? These things, of course, being all the things described in a dictionary.


 * That last sentence in Jwrosenzweig's statement has some mixed stance that reveals conflict with the Wikipedia instructions. The welcome pages say in essence if you can't make an encyclopedic article of a dicitionary entry, go ahead and post it and we will.


 * The problem comes when readers find statements describing how Wikipedia articles start as stubs that others improve, then they see all these stubs, then they write one and find themself or another hazed as a "clueless newbie" by those who say "we don't" help make encyclopedic articles of dictionary style entries. Rainchild 07:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the process of losing all hope in wikipedia here. You say "significance, history, effects, related concepts and so on" but what I want to hear is "shorter more precice, more organized information about".

I dont think you understand. I will not return to this page again today but I will continue to add and organize info at least until tomorrow, no longer in hope that it will help present the worlds info in a more organized way but because it helps me study for the test tommorow. Bensaccount 00:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Care to give us an example of an encyclopedic article on compendium? How about User:Bensaccount/compendium. I eagerly await your addition. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ben---as for articles being "shorter and more precise"---obviously there's merit to being concise and to the point, but that doesn't necessarily mean being shorter. If there is a lot to say about a subject, there is no reason not to say it, since length is not a restriction. Please feel free to improve any article you find that has problems with conciseness, provided that does not mean effectively turning a thorough discussion into bullet points. And of course there are some issues with lack of organization here; when thousands of relative strangers randomly contribute to any article they like, quite a bit of messiness can result. We always welcome those who would like to put their time into making Wikipedia more organized and coherent; I think if you spend a little more time here, you'll be impressed with how well the system works, and with how most problems tend to be self-correcting. -- Wapcaplet 23:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, shorter isnt better. But when an article is too long it should be subdivided. Bensaccount 18:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Links
Why do the links at The Dils (to roots rock and Los Angeles, California) not work? Tuf-Kat 21:53, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I find a page for roots rock reggae (redirect), but I don't see one for roots rock; the los angeles links work fine for me here & there. Elf 22:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * They weren't working because there were line breaks in the middle of the links: Los Angeles . That won't parse as a link. –Hajor 17:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

GandhiServe Extlink spam
217.230.179.232 has added 3 Gandhi extlinks not only to Mohandas Gandhi (where they belong), but continues to add the same links to over a dozen loosly related articles. I think it's enough to have them in the article where they're most relevant...comments? Mkweise 21:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mentioned hir at Clueless newbies. Has created a number of articles which now solely contain that external link.  It seems to be a commercial site.  moink 21:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * In fact the user/users seem to have registered as User:Gandhiserve. I don't think they have commercial interests. Jay 15:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * After extensive spam-like edits yesterday, I blocked him for two hours with the instruction to read our policies. He has emailed me since apologizing, and stating that he now understands our policies.  He offered to clean up the damage done (i.e., the unnecessary links) but I told him I was sure we'd handled it....I also said he was welcome to add the link to Gandhi's article, and to add factual information to Gandhi-related articles.  I think we're fine now -- he seems very pleasant and understanding about the whole thing. Jwrosenzweig 16:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sound power & Sound intensity level
Should Sound power & Sound intensity level be merged into one article? -- SGBailey 2004-03-04


 * Not the same thing. I've fixed some confusing wording that may have made it appear so. Mkweise 16:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It might be worth someone who knows about this adding a sentance at the bottom of each explaining who they are different, or at least linking as somewhat related concepts. Mark Richards 00:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why have people started explaining their edits in e-mails, instead of on the appropriate talk page?
Suddenly I've started receiving all sorts of e-mails discussing article edits. Has there been a recent change that encourages e-mailing? I think this is a major change for the worse; such discussions should be preserved for all to see on the appropriate talk page. Mkweise 12:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Emails from lots of different people? Or just one? The former would surprise me. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * To be specific, I've received e-mail from 3 different users concerning 3 completely unrelated articles in less than a week&mdash;compared to zero over the previous two years. Mkweise 13:57, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I would just tell them that it's better to discuss Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia, unless it's a personal matter that you would rather not divulge to the world. Dori | Talk 14:11, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Actually I have also started receiving many emails from Wikipedians. I also prefer to communicate with others using e-mail, and not the talk pages. I don't know why everyone started using e-mail suddenly, but probably it has something to do with mirrors who copy the talk pages. (that's also my reason I use email). My advice is not to use the talkpages unless the discussed topic needs to be public. Optim 14:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * IMHO, discussions about articles should be in the talk pages. I've recently recieved a couple emails about other wikipedians, in which case I think those should be handeled privately. &rarr;Raul654 14:21, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly disagree with that advice. Openness is a good thing. Is Fred Bauder's site (Wikinfo) the only site to copy user pages? We can surely work with him to alleviate that concern, if needs be. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There are many. The worst thing is that most of them don't let you edit the contents. Optim 15:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The way to fix this is to provide mirrors with pre-prepared HTML tarballs. That way we can include GFDL notices and links back, and exclude non-article pages. Some recent code refactoring means this isn't as hard as it used to be. Any volunteers? -- Tim Starling 23:17, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * See also User:Optim/Userpages. Optim·.· 16:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is very important to have openness on Wikipedia, and that things related to Wikipedia should be discussed on publicly visible Talk pages. Any Wikipedia-related issues that need to be discussed in realtime should be taken to the Wikipedia IRC channel. IMs and e-mails should be reserved for private, non-Wikipedia-related contact. -- Skyfaller 02:49, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

Make Edit Summary compulsory for anonymous users
I would like to suggest that it be made compulsory for anonymous users to put something (anything!) in the edit summary box. I would like to make it compulsory for everyone but I'm willing to start small and work up. --Phil 11:02, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Apart from the "start small and work up" idea, is there any other reason why only anonymous users should be made to do this ? I'd prefer making the summary compulsory for everyone for non-minor edits. Or if that is frowned upon, at least make it compulsory for long pages like Village pump and Vfd. Jay 15:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Jay, if it's only for minor edits, I think all that will encourage is for people to mark major edits as minor, rather than explain them in detail. Sorry to be pessimistic. Jwrosenzweig 16:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I surpose making it compulsury for anon users to add a sumary might help curb vandalism, as people putting rubbish in the article are likely to do the same in the summary box making it easier to spot. But I wouldn't support making it compulsury for logged in users. G-Man 20:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I concur with the original post - I'd like to see it mandatory for *all* edits, but I'm willing to start with anon users. I agree with the point about differentiating between minor and non-minor edits, though. Noel 00:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Edit summaries should be made mandatory imnsho. Jor 20:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Forcing anons to preview a page before being presented with a save button would also be a good idea. --mav 05:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Force everyone to preview pages before they can save their edits. I know it would probably benefit me. Failing that, make hitting Enter preview rather than save -- so far I have twice saved half-edited page when my finger slipped while I was summarizing. --Charles A. L. 21:36, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Make always previewing the default but allow registered users to override in preferences. Jor 20:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Compulsory summary and copyrights on images
Good idea, I would like to see it compulsury for people to add a summary of copyright details on pictures they've uploaded as well, because on many of them you havn't a clue where they've come from. G-Man 19:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Just as you can't legislate morality, I doubt that forcing people to do what they don't want to do will help here. I agree with the comments on image copyrights... It's a pet peeve of mine. But software is not the way to go IMO. Rather we need to somehow motivate image contributors to provide the info. At present I suspect that many of the unattributed images are deliberately so, because the contributors know they are violating copyright but don't care and don't think Wikipedia should either. Andrewa 17:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Au contraire, if there are other contributors anything like me, they upload the photo and then *maybe* they've at some time in the past seen a page somewhere that talks about what kind of copyright info you're supposed to put on the image page, but they don't remember where and it's a pain to find it. Or they simply went straight to the image upload and never saw the detailed info on what's expected on copyrights in the image description. Could the image page automatically be filled in with boilerplate, prompts, links to help dense and/or lazy people like me get the right info in place? Elf 20:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I expect it could, and if you think it would help then this should be raised as a software upgrade. Meantime, let me try to scare you.


 * These images are all temporary citizens. Long term and perhaps long before that, Wikipedia will have no choice but to delete them, because it will be impossible to source them. Exactly where the line will be drawn about verifiable provenance is a bit hard to say, but as King Lear said, "nothing will come of nothing". So, if you do have any provenance at all, and if the images are worth having, then please go back and add it before you forget it. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time by contributing them. Sorry if that's blunt. Andrewa 21:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll see about exploring requesting software updates. Actually it did scare me when the image/copyright discussion first came up (here? somewhere?) about 2 weeks ago with threats of pending removals and I went back & tracked down the instructions and edited the images. So, yeah, I scare good. :-) I'll try to come up with a suggestion for what could be done with the page to (a) provide the relevant info and (b) scare people realtime. ;-) Elf 23:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Great stuff. Positive directions. Feel free to continue on my talk page if I can help.


 * And welcome to the image team! It can be an exciting place... sometimes exciting good, sometimes exciting ordinary... artistic types aren't always famous for their tact and graces. (-> Andrewa 20:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

short note on installation of a computer
B-flat hemidemisemiquaver. HTH HAND --Phil 11:03, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * "For me a simple chord of Beethoven is enough. This is happiness." ... [Ernest, with] his mind's ear seemed to hear Miss Skinner saying, as though it were an epitaph:&mdash;


 * "Stay:
 * I may presently take
 * A simple chord of Beethoven,
 * Or a small semiquaver
 * From one of Mendelssohn's Songs without Words."


 * &mdash;Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh

Front page design...
I noticed the new front page design which has the ability to switch between a table version and nontable version. I was just wondering why the nontable version is so neutered? A CSS version of the table-based design is perfectly possible. I'm fairly into the whole "CSS thing" so I was wondering if there's some sort of place where this type is decided or where people can contribute? -- 132.162.225.93 06:12, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Try feedbacks at Talk:Main Page (table free). You'll be the 1st who comments on that. A pioneer commentor, if you will. Have fun! Menchi 07:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article naming strategy on the Mozilla Knowledge Base
Hey folks, sorry this isn't directly about Wikipedia, but I have a meta question over at the Mozilla Knowledge Base, which is a brand new wiki instruction manual for Mozilla software that runs on the MediaWiki software. I wrote up an article about why limited use of categories is actually useful for the Mozilla KB, and why the current article naming scheme there should be changed. I basically got the go-ahead to implement my suggested changes, because there doesn't seem to be anyone else there who is experienced with the Wikipedia software and culture who could/would agree or disagree with me. I'm pretty sure that my suggested changes are a good idea, but I thought I'd post to the Wikipedia community to get feedback before I follow through. What do you folks think? -- Skyfaller 03:33, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mozillazine is down for planned maintenance, guess I have bad timing... I'll try to post again when it comes back up. -- Skyfaller 04:42, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * It's back up. -- Skyfaller 06:22, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Weird Middle Ages Year Page Anomaly
As near as I can tell, the years 1154 to 1275 are the only years in our series with a section called "Heads of State" or "Monarchs/Presidents". These lists are ridiculously hard to construct (as a monarch who reigned from 1213 to 1255 would only link to those two years, and not those intervening), and are currently woefully incomplete. May I go through and delete that section, or are they there for a reason? Anyone know? Jwrosenzweig 20:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the fact that they're ridiculously hard to construct would be a reason not to delete them. Anthony DiPierro 20:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Deleting things is hardly ever a good option. On the other hand, the fact that Henry II of England and the corresponding French guy seem to be mentioned on more than thirty year pages is ridiculous.


 * Also, lots of things seem to have happened ("Events") in 1180, hardly anything in 1181. Could the reason for that be that it is sometimes difficult to tell when exactly something happened and 1180 really stands for c.1180?


 * Summing up, some of these pages are really weird, but still I wouldn't do anything about them. If we're talking about Wikipedia being work in progress, they are a case in point.  20:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea because it gives context for what was happening around the world at that time (and gives context for what was happening for ongoing events between nations, e.g. wars). About a week ago, I was working on a replacement for this section that looked a little nicer and made more sense visually here but back-burnered it until I could think about it some more. But this is just as good a time as any to solicit feedback on it. If anyone has any feedback on that, please use that discussion page. RadicalBender 20:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * All right, I'm out shouted. I guess my experience has mostly been with working on pages in the 1270s (why am I working on them?  No idea -- completely random), where the only listing is the king of Aragon.  He looks kind of silly there, and I had no idea how to go about listing leaders (and which leaders to list?), so I left it, but in my opinion it looked (and looks) pretty bad.  If all the people above who are dead set on the idea would put in a little time to flesh it out, I think that would be great.  Frankly, though, I think the desire to list world leaders demonstrates a very top-down biased view of history.  If a monarch does something of note, it will be listed in events (new rulers are noted there also).  Just the fact that a particular person was king, though, doesn't have that great an effect on history--we could try to assemble a list of "influential people of the time" that would be far more meaningful, but ultimately disastrous and edit-warred.  This is why I prefer sticking to talking about actual events, and not lists of people who may or may not have been "important" at the time. Jwrosenzweig 21:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The medieval years mostly lack people to fill them out. Just using backlinks alone I can fill out a page in 20 minutes, don't even need to hit the library. I would like to see it expanded to non-monarchs, then the rule could be very mechanical; one could have a bit of software that constructs a list of people when you click on "People alive during this year". (Of course, monarch's rule is different from lifespan!) Stan 21:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Do not delete the lists. Optim·.· 21:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed is a software-supported way to link to a range of dates rather than to specific dates. This wouldn't be a link you could follow, just one that would show up on some sort of search, similar to what links here. The obvious uses are in biographies and reigns, but there would be others... the period of long voyages and other expeditions, for example. It might also be useful for numeric ranges other than dates. Lots to consider. Food for thought? Andrewa 22:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recombining protected and unprotected page lists
The current situation with Protected page and Unprotected page is untenable. There are multiple listings for pages and it is difficult to coordinate between the two. It is better to have the history of a page's protection and unprotection in a single list. Angela proposed keeping the main list in a separate page on Wikipedia talk:Unprotected page. silsor 18:44, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's cumbersome. But it is a vast improvement on the old. single page system, which was absolutely hopeless. Tannin 20:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I would submit that, if admins took the 30 seconds necessary to cut an article's listing from Protected page and paste it to Unprotected page when unprotecting, there would be nothing cumbersome at all. What is needed here isn't page reorganization -- it's admins taking a little extra time and trouble to make sure things remain organized.  Saying that as an admin who is giving himself advice as well as others, Jwrosenzweig 20:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Link to article edit page
Can anyone explain why on Random walk the link to Drunkard's Walk is red (for page doesn't exist) and yet it takes you to the artciles edit page where text exists. From there you can cancel and read the article. -- SGBailey 15:18, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * Weird....I tried a minor edit where I changed nothing -- the preview showed that the link wasn't red anymore.....but then I saved and it's still red. This must be database trouble above my ability to understand. :-)  Well, I tried. Jwrosenzweig 17:50, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, fixed now, all I had to do was make an edit in which any actual change happened. It should work for you. Jwrosenzweig 19:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, fixed. -- SGBailey 10:12, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

User concerns over IP address showing?
This probably isn't the best place to ask, but I've recently installed MediaWiki on a site of my own. A few people have expressed concern to me about the software keeping and publicly displaying their IP addresses (either fear of being cracked, or privacy concerns, or what, I don't know). Blatant nonsense, but I don't have the technological smarts to shoot them down. I imagine potential Wikipedia contributors must ask the same question from time to time, but I can't find a FAQ on it or similar, nor on Meta. Any thoughts? Calum 12:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Just tell them to log in.&mdash;Eloquence


 * We touch on the issue at Why_create_an_account?. Unlogged-in edits have to be tracked (roughly) by user somehow, else vandalism would be impossible to track and prevent. IP addresses are the only option for this. Thus users should be encouraged to log in to mitigate the issue. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason anonymous users couldn't be given a unique reference number, and leave the IP accessible only to sysops? Seeing as usually the IP is only used as unique tag anyway, I don't see that this would be a serious change.  -- Calum

Question from Anonymous User
T think that this aticle is incroect and i want to ask you if you may change it to the right stuff pleses because i need the right information.


 * Can you explain what article you mean? You yourself can change it, though!  That's how it works here. Jwrosenzweig 00:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

School Project
Apparently a German business school is using our site for a massive project. The main article page is here: Customer Experience Management (CEM) but there are myriads of these articles. Users are not logged in, and I can't tell whether they have any idea about NPOV or anything else here. I've tried leaving messages on their talk pages, at first confused and concerned they were a business, but then simply asking them for details of their project to go to School and university projects. Of course, if they're not getting usernames, I don't know that they know about talk pages or will have the same IP address next time. Anyone know anything about this? Anyone have an idea of how to communicate with them? I feel very lost. Jwrosenzweig 00:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Get their attention the same way you get anyone's attention: severe refactoring, reverting, VFD listings, etc. The pages which have been created look like they could use some of that. Make lots of references to the questions you asked at User talk:145.254.237.111. University lecturers have no more right to mess up the wiki than anyone else. -- Tim Starling 00:11, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoa... is that how we treat newbies here? Severe refactoring, reverting, VFD listings?  I'm glad no one treated me that way when I first showed up.  moink 19:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, when newbies refuse to respond to any talk page messages and don't get an account, and add dozens and dozens of articles in what looks like near-trolling fashion....I guess you have to say "go with what works". :) It worked in this instance, because the VfD notice took them to a posting at VfD that explained exactly what the problem was and how it needed to be corrected. We can leave messages on IP talk pages forever and never get a response.  You're right that this isn't how to deal with newbies in general, but in an extreme case like this, I think Tim is right that something drastically noticeable is called for. Jwrosenzweig 19:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You may well be right in this case. In fact, I don't disagree with anything you've said.  I do disagree with Tim's statement that this is the "way you get anyone's attention."  Maybe he meant as a last resort, which I can understand.  I just don't want anyone to read Tim's statement and think that's how we start when we need someone's attention.  moink 17:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am using the Wikipedia for a project, though more to introduce the students to collaborative software - and I do keep track of what they are doing. About 40 students, Master level TechStrat course, details at School and university projects, at User:Espen/gra6821, and at the course home page. Assignment handin on March 15, 2004, hopefully some of these people will continue contributing (the Norwegian version sure could do with a few more articles.) Espen 11:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So the talk page just has to include the copyright disclaimer. Thats sounds good to me. I will now copy the nystate text to the wikipoedia article. Thanks Raul!! Perl 00:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you can't use it. It would be an invariant section and we don't allow those. --mav 00:24, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would be a copyright notice, not an invariant section. Under the GFDL, copyright notices are viral.
 * The real concern is that they have not granted permission to modify. This makes their content incompatible with the GFDL. Best ask them for permission, eh? Martin 23:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

''Copyright, Disclaimer &amp; Privacy &copy; 2000-2003 New York State Division of Military &amp; Naval Affairs and NY National Guard. All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy and distribute the materials contained in these Web pages without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that the name or any trademark of The New York State Division of Military &amp; Naval Affairs and the New York National Guard not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the information without the National Guard's specific, written permission.''

State copyright
Can the state of new york hold copyright? I want to copy this to wikipedia, but I am not sure if it is in the public domain. Perl 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest emailing them and asking if their writing is in the public domain. If not, asking if they are willing to release it under the GFDL would be step 2, I think.  I've never done this, though -- perhaps someone here who has should offer further guidance? Jwrosenzweig 23:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(&rarr;Raul654) Just look here:
 * http://dmna.ny.gov/disclaimer/ -

Google (et al) caching and associated problems
Although indexing is bound to be a problem on sites as dynamic as 'pedia, for the most part, it seems to be working very well. However, there are various anomalies. Most notably, tonight on IRC someone noticed that google has indexed (and cached) several non-existant articles, such as this: ((Malapropos: is anyone seeing render problems w/overlaping google disclaimer and wikilogo? Mozilla Firefox)) One solution which came to mind, was to add  or similar tags to the template for non-existant articles. However, a much more elagant solution was proposed by another person on IRC: Enact an Apache Mod_Rewrite rule similar to "RewriteRule ^/edit/(.*)$ /wiki/wiki.phtml?title=$1&action=edit [L]" and instruct spiders to avoid /edit/....... in the robots.txt file. This has the addition effect of making a direct link to an edit page easier to type and considerably more sightly (to non perl-programers :-).

Also, I have wondered increasingly since my recent arrival in the community why Talk: pages are allowed to be indexed/cached, and to a slightly lesser extent, User pages. Most of the preceding could apply equally to those.

Thanks for reading. nsh 20:49, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC) talk


 * For searching Wikipedia with Google, I find it useful that all namespaces are indexed and cached. --Patrick 23:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Indexing edit windows can be annoying, but it shouldn't do that anymore. --mav 00:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

nsh: edit pages have long been forbidden by our robots.txt along with other dynamic pages (it wouldn't do for spiders to go through every possible combination of diffs in the history!), and further contain . However if Google catches a live link to a page that is later deleted, or follows an interwiki or otherwise manually constructed link to a page that may not have existed, it does end up at the "(There is currently no text in this page)". This is fairly rare but is a little annoying, yes. Perhaps we'll change it to return a 404 code (with the same output) for nonexitent pages; this would help with automated tools in general.

And yes, the Google header overlaps with the Wikipedia header. CSS absolute positioning doesn't agree with somebody else slipping text into your page. :) --Brion 18:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge page history of Golden mean and Golden Ratio
The pages were cut 'n pasted around January 19 of this year. --seav 13:51, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Pages now merged. Angela. 17:13, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Block user help
We're being vandalized by a user using the 212.185.249.x range. I'd like to block the entire 212.185.249.x range. At the block user page, I entered 212.185.249.40/80, and it blocked the 212.185.0.x range. Can someone tell me what I should enter? &rarr;Raul654 02:09, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

New Imperialism

 * Someone keeps restoring a more confusing, less concise version.

What is Non Commercial Use of a Site's Materials
Hello, not that good with this kinda thing. When you read a site's copyright page and it says something to the effect of: ''This site and its contents may be used only for personal, noncommercial use. All worldwide rights, titles and interests are reserved.''

Does that mean one may use their material as long as it is not for profit?

Thanks

Merge page history of Golden mean and Golden Ratio
fixed

Unidentified fruit/veg
I don't know whether this should be here or the reference desk but does anyone know what this is:
 * Image:UnidentifiedFruit2.jpg

Thanks. Secretlondon 17:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Personal Images Copyright
I'm a keen photographer and have posted some of my own images like on this page. At present I've put on the GFDL tag but I'm wondering what is most appropriate. I really only want to permit the photos use on Wikipedia. Any ideas?? Jgritz 13:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You can find a lot of explanation on Copyrights. If I understand it correctly, if you upload images here under the GFDL, that means you still keep the copyright of that image, that means you can still do whatever you want with it. However you did not only allow Wikipedia to use it, but any other copy of Wikipedia which follows the GFDL. This may be a fork like wikinfo.org, it may be a website which uses wikipedia contents like those listed in Sites that use Wikipedia for content. They only need to follow the GFDL, that means most of all list you as the author of the image. BTW: That image of the Tasmanian devil really rocks :-) How about making a photo album subpage like mine? andy 15:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What are your concerns with releasing the photos under the GFDL? Anthony DiPierro 16:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea of the GFDL is to allow/encourage people to freely copy GFDL'd material and freely diseminate it. What you are proposing is directly counter to the GFDL. You can post them here under a Do-not-copy license, but Jimbo's new image-acceptance policy says that we would prefer to use an alternate GFDL/public domain picture instead, and if one were available we would use it instead. . &rarr;Raul654 16:10, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Under the new acceptance policy, images contributed by the copyright holder must be released under the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 16:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Is the operative phrase there by the copyright holder? That would help explain why GandhiServe's Mahatma photo is a no-no but Madame President of Ireland and Antonio Martin's aeroplanes are OK. –Hajor 05:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have wondered about this too. Pics I draw in xpaint I gfdl cheerfully, pics I shoot I can accept to gfdl, but I have also felt that I'd like to put "permission to use in wikipedia context only" on some pics. I made a small experiment with my user pic (this one) by writing "Not gfdled" on it. Noone took notice though. I have an idea of "donating" submitted pics to wikipedia though; if a pic is donated to wikipedia, it doesn't have to be GFDLed for wikipedia to use it, right?
 * I will be understading if this-all is not possible, though. &mdash; Sverdrup 21:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "Fair use" is for images which can not be obtained through any other methods. It is not for images submitted by the copyright holder for which the submitter merely doesn't want to license under the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 01:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If I put the version on Wikipedia under GFDL, does this just cover the jpg, or the actual image as a visual concept- e.g. If I sell a copy of my high-res version of the Tasmanian Devil to a stock library, is the high-res version seen in a different light. Or am I prohibited to sell it in any form if it comes under the GDFL. You know what I mean??? BTW, the entry under Copyrights for Original Works simply states "You Rock!". Not overly helpful... Jgritz 08:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Licensing the image to Wikipedia under GFDL will not impair your ability to license it to other groups under different terms. -- Cyrius 09:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yep you can still do what you like with the high-res image. I do the same. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Help
Dear Sir, We have 20 pair ariel Telephone Cable. We want to lay out the cable to connect our telephone lines from the last delivery point available at the site, which is about 3 kilometer Distance from our office. Due to some reason, we have to take about 1.5 kms in the ground 3 feet deep. We would like to know is it ok to take 20 pair ariel cable underground plus,  please advice what precautions should we  take during layout as there is water seepage in some parts of the land dig out for the cable.

An early answer will be appreciated as we have to lay cable as soon as possible.

from

Najmul Hassan Pakistan.

najmhassan@hotmail.com


 * Umm, this is an encyclopedia, wish I could help, but why would Wikipedia know the answer to that? I am always amazed by these kinds of questions. Sometimes I wonder if it's just one guy having fun with us. Or perhaps, Wikipedia has an Ask Jeeves kind of vibe for people. The know-it-all place, where all your questions shall be answered. We should rename it to WikiOracle or something. Dori | Talk 16:54, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I work for a newspaper, and in the pre-Google days, newspapers served this role. We'd get phone calls about all kinds of weird stuff, from library hours to questions about local history. That has largely dried up, though ... I guess they come here now. DavidWBrooks 17:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That still happens...recently someone called us to ask how much money the mayor of the city makes, and to find out what day the Duke of Kent visited the city in 1942...I would have thought to look that stuff up online first though :) Adam Bishop 05:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's starting to look like we might need to form a Unusual requests to keep an archive of some of the bizarre things people ask around here :-) -- Wapcaplet 19:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Mr. Hassan in his haste forgot to tell us what sort of cable he purchased. Perhaps Mr. Hassan could contact our Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps they will be able to determine if you have shielded cable suitable for direct burial. Think about it, gang, who with enough money to buy 3km of 20 pair cable would address an open letter to an encyclopedia to get instructions on how to use it? Either a recruiter or an investigator, maybe. Kareem 04:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend trying the Straight Dope Message Board at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/ It's a general information message board where people ask questions and hope that another poster can answer it. MK 05:37, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The reason is surely that Wikipedia is a bunch of people obsessed with researching and publishing information. It's a fair chance that someone will be interested and inclined to answer the gentleman. For better or worse, we're a community of compulsive altrustic researchers. Mark Richards 07:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, then, but if I get busted for aiding and abetting I'm gonna look you up, Mark. Like I said, we need to know what kind of cable Mr. Hassan has. He needs something shielded suitable for direct burial. And the gain amp probably needs to be hardened, and I mean hardened depending on where you are in Pakistan. But these are questions one poses to a manufacturer, not to an open encyclopedia. And Mr. Hassan can call the manufacturer to make an informed choice. Would you spend thousands of dollars to bury thousands of dollars worth of cable on the advice of an anonymous discussion group?


 * As a matter of fact, it would be irresponsible and could involve criminal liability simply for gross negligence if a cable were buried improperly. Say on our advice he buried the wire in a wet area where there is also an electric line. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for those standards nor will it be until Wikipedia systematically keeps its not-yet-published-here standards up to date with the prevailing standards. But Mr. Hassan needs to know what standards and rules for buried cable apply in Pakistan, not in the United States.


 * I am reluctant to write any detailed articles on communications or utility infrastructure. However, if we want to go there, this encyclopedia can describe every vital link and method used in the civil infrastructure. Kareem 10:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Wikiprojects and ease of use vs. ease of editing
More and more article types (Space Shuttle Missions and Albums, to name a couple) are getting rather complex standard formats, apparently under the heading "Wikiprojects". While I can see that from a user's perspective these are nice, if not necessarily more useful than straight text, but from a potential editor's perspective they are daunting. Two weeks ago if a neophyte potential editor clicked "edit this page" at Four Symbols, for example, he/she got a nice window with the first couple paragraphs of source text in it. A few formatting characters, too, but nothing he/she had to know to make an edit. Today if a newbie tries to edit the same page they get a faceful of quasi-HTML code -- run away! Yes, they can, if they are brave, scroll down to where the meat is, but I think folks who know and are comfortable with such markups highly underestimate the chilling effect they have on potential editors. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia has always valued content over form; it seems we want everybody, not just web gurus, to be able to effectively participate in the 'pedia both as a user and as an editor, right? Then there needs to be a way to do a formatless edit (actually an edit of text only keeping the existing format in place). I'd go so far to say that fancy formats should be put on hold until such a tool exists.

Forgive me if this has been or is being hashed out somewhere else, and if so, please point me. I think it's important, though. Jgm 06:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, I've been trying to put comments at the beginning and end of the table code to make it clearer what's happening. This has apparently been suggested several times in various places but it bears repeating. Try Edit this page at German Short-haired Pointer. Elf 06:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Jgm makes a very good point, in my opinion. Content should always be more important than form, and we should be actively working to remove anything that might put new contributors off.  I'd like to second the request that fancy formatting should be put on hold until "formatless editing" is the default.  GrahamN 06:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * While I completely agree Jgm your point, I think this is a problem of dillema--dillema between the goal of wikipedia and wiki-like writing. For example, I usually cannot put fancy math equations because I don't know about the syntax of &lt;math&gt;. Of course, you can learn the syntax but the premise of wiki is you can just write contents without learning syntaxes. But the question can we get rid of those fancy syntaxes? The new image syntax, while complex, solves a number of problems. The virtue of UNIX is solve 90% because the rest of 10% is inherently hard to solve probably. Because we want to make wikipedia a 100% encyclopedia, we have to sacrify some simplicity, quickness and low-learning curve. I suspect we eventually adopt some sort of database feature or something, possibly with xml formats. -- Taku 07:12, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Maths symbols are a special case, because they are content, not form, so they should not be suppressed in formatless editing. But I see no reason why "form-only" mark-up could not be suppressed.  GrahamN 07:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have also been concerned at the growth in complexity of the wiki-markup. The mix of tables and can be daunted. With parameterized messages on their way, things are only going to get more complex. There are of course advantages: power users are able to do more with the time they donate to Wikipedia. One way to mitigate the problems a bit is to use HTML comments in the markup. E.g. if you see an article that begins with a horrendous bit of a HTML (like the articles with taxoboxes do) consider adding a HTML comment at the top :


 * If it were possible to transclude articles in the same way as using, we could put complicated tables such as in Four Symbols in a "sub-article" (say Four Symbols\\table--note that the \\ currently breaks the link so we could probably subvert use that :-) and transclude it into the main article. Then the table could be edited separately and not clutter up the main article. Hey, is that a feature suggestion? I bet it's been thought of before. HTH HAND (thinking of adding that to my sig) --Phil 09:32, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I heard that parameterized messages are coming real soon now.. so before what you suggest happens we are going to start seeing stuff like at the top of articles instead of html tables. The template namespace will of course look hellish... it will be HTML code inter-mixed with positional parameters e.g.....   $1  $2  ... but at least they are out of sight of new users... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The WikiProject Aircraft data table includes a comment line that tells new editors that the actual "meat" of the article can be found by just scrolling down a little.


 * [interjecting] Hmm... I could sworn I heard that somewhere before :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Adoption of the wikicode for tables also makes things look far less daunting than html table code. --Rlandmann 11:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Image thumbnail weirdness
OK, another weird thing. The thumbnail in the Australian Shepherd breed table displayed fine 20 minutes ago. I didn't change the Image statement at all, but I did go to the image page and edited its text. Now the thumbnail doesn't display. Clicking the magnifying glass works OK. (Simply editing the image description page doesn't seem to be the problem, because I tried it with one of the other thumbnails.) Can anyone else see the thumbnail? If not, anyone know why it's gone? Elf 05:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) I quit out of my browser and restarted and that fixed it. Elf 05:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How do you use the little check boxes in the article history?
When I hover over a check box a little yellow rectangle appears that says "Select any two versions to diff them". This sounds like a terrific new feature (thank you to whoever had the idea, and whoever programmed it) and I'd like to make use of it, but I don't understand what I'm supposed to do. I've selected two versions. There are two little ticks next to the versions I want to "diff". What do I do now? Sorry to trouble you with this, but I can't find an answer in the help pages. GrahamN 05:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You click two boxes, and you should automatically be taken to the diff page (the diff between the two pages you checked). If you are not getting this, you might have the relavant setting in your browser disabled. &rarr;Raul654 05:08, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Is it JavaScript or Active-X or one of those things? If I turn all that nonsense on it just slows down this crappy old 486 computer I'm using. Is there not a simpler way? GrahamN 05:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * yes it's javascript based, I also disable jscript and miss the feature. Richard cocks 06:23, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe some nice developer could add a little "show diff" button that we script refuseniks could click on to make use of this fantastic new feature? GrahamN 06:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sssshh! Don't say that too loudly or someone'll probably move this thread over to Ignored feature requests. &rarr;Raul654 06:49, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it's already being happily ignored as a SourceForge bug - I even made a prototype replacement (untested) which uses radio buttons instead. -- IMSoP 12:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * In my defense, sourceforge bug reports make every effort to hide the fact that a patch was attached. I'm looking at it now... --Brion 04:58, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

A humble observation
Why is it that we don't tell people how much their contributions are appreciated until after they leave? Wouldn't it be a lot better to give someone a kind word while they're here? &rarr;Raul654 03:11, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * From someone who has been thinking about their future here following the tiring edit wars by anon IPs going on today, yes (to the second question). -- Graham :) 03:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Most editors seem to leave without having given much warning. They just get fed up with everything and pack it up. It's not that they don't understand that most other editors appreciate their work, it's that they can't stand to deal with those who don't. Telling good editors who have left how much they and their work is appreciated is simply an attempt to get them to change their mind. Alas, I don't think it works in most cases (I am glad Alex is back, wish that Daniel would come back). People just make up their own minds either way. Dori | Talk 03:16, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * We could all try to be more aware of what others are doing and let fly some random acts of appreciation. I've been on Wiki only a month and a half and I think 3 different people have let me know that they think I'm doing a good job or at least that they appreciate my effort. I don't know how people manage to be so observant and thoughtful, but yes it really is a nice thing to hear! Elf 03:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * While not disagreeing with any of the above, I would have doubts about any contributor who left simply because they were not getting enough praise. If you don't enjoy writing encyclopaedia articles for their own sake then this site is probably not your bag. GrahamN 07:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand. It's not that they leave because they aren't getting enough praise - they leave because the trolls here are becoming progressively more vicious and getting rid of them has gotten quite a bit harder. Praise helps alleviate the feelings of burnout that constant warring can cause. &rarr;Raul654 07:33, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. As in any society, you cannot expect people to behave always well for free without showing your support and appreciation. It is not a matter of I want to be complimented but of preventing oh, what the heck, this is awful, I work for nobody and moreover, the trolls attack me. Happy people are better workers. And it is generally easy to make people smile and feel appreciated. Pfortuny 08:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this for a while, before, and thought of something like "Wikipedians Appreciation Day", where on one day (but definately not restricted to one day), everyone should express their appreciations to other Wikipedians out there! Dysprosia 10:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Sounds like a pretty good idea (though you don't necessarily need a day to appreciate people - if you see a good contribution, go and say so on the contributors talk page). Could it be co-incided with any important date in the History of Wikipedia? Ludraman 10:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Naturally, but dedicate one day each year to showing others how much they are valued will improve the WikiAura around here considerably :) Dysprosia 11:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I really like that idea! Wikipedia appreciation day - that would be a great idea! &rarr;Raul654 14:18, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think there's already a day to appreciate the Wikipedia, what I'm proposing is a day to appreciate the cogs in the machine, the Wikipedians :) All that remains is to pick a day and to wait for it, then... Dysprosia 06:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If every editor made a point of sending one nice comment to another editor each day, this would look like a very supportive place. If you find yourself saying "whoa, good article" while reading one, just let everybody know! Stan 17:42, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or we could do a MacDonald like thing say, Wikipedian of the month. Or some sort of Oscars. I can imagine the thrill... Muriel 17:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoa! What a brilliant comment. Congratulations on a great contribution to Wikipedia! :-) Ludraman | Talk 08:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Possible MediaWiki bug
The W3.org HTML validator finds an erroneous &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; in the Honeysuckle article--there's no such thing if you click Edit this page. (You have to save the whole page and upload it--if you try and run the validator direct on the site it gets a 403 error.)  Niteowlneils 02:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I should have made it clear that this error appears on other articles, as well--this is just one of the more clearer examples. And I was seeking the advice/conformation from someone more knowledgable about Mediawiki and/or HTML, as I am an expert on neither, before listing it as an actual bug. Niteowlneils 21:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New poll re: sidebar
Due to the confusing nature of the last poll, we have restarted the poll about what to remove from the sidebar in order to link the Community Portal page. Vote at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal.

And this has solved the problem! The extra line doesn't even appear on the page. jaknouse 23:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Please get an up-to-date browser. Your extra line is not needed for them, and it does show up. WormRunner 23:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem with getting an up-to-date browser is that I am too poor to buy a system that can run a newer browser. I think there are many people in my position. jaknouse 23:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you tried Opera? The point is that your kludge is not invisible to other browsers. WormRunner 23:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you point to an example of the problem? I have netscape 4.7 on an old windows 95 box and I tried going to old versions of vascular plant which you modified and I cannot reproduce the table showing up on the wrong side.  Is anyone else getting this problem? WormRunner 01:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * A few pages it's still happening in: Fern, Impatiens, Honeysuckle family, Ginkgo. jaknouse 02:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm puzzled. I can't reproduce the issue on any of those pages on my win95 box.  The table is on the right as it is supposed to be.  Perhaps there is something peculiar to your settings or box. WormRunner 02:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem I see on these pages with Win2k/NN4.77 is that the text to the left of the box is all one skinny column, but widens out once the box stops. (of course 4.77 has display problems with the common parts of every (or at least most) page). Niteowlneils 02:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would say to try opera since it is still designed for a small footprint and is standards compliant. WormRunner 03:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I just tried NN 4.77 on my Mac (sys 9.1) and they display beautifully. Maybe you should get a Mac. ;-)  (Just kidding...)  Elf 03:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

EXAMPLE:

[ [ pl:Okrytonasienne ] ]

[ [ sv:Fröväxter ] ]

&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;

&lt;table border="1" cellspacing="0" align="right" cellpadding="2" style="margin-left:1em"&gt;

Taxobox Formatting
I've had a serious problem with taxobox formatting in biological articles. Much of the time, it appears on the left, whether I'm using Netscape 4.7 or Explorer 4.0. I finally realized that what the articles had in common that had the taxoboxes misplace was other languages for the article. So I started inserting a space, four hyphens, another space between the languages and the taxobox, like this:

Table problem on Citric Acid page
The article for Citric Acid has a problem rendering its table. The closing table tag gets rendered with & lt; and & gt;, making it visible, instead of closing the table. The opening paragraph ends up formatted as part of the table using some browsers. The HTML looks OK per my reference material, and the person that added the table commented that he was also unable to find a problem with the HTML. I removed the closing table tag so it wouldn't display, but the text, at least using MS-IE, is formatted incorrectly. And omitting the closing table tag is bad HTML. May look correct (I suspect the intention is actually to have the first    paragraph formatted to the left, like the rest of the article): http://ginger-or-mary-ann.com/CitricAdicMozilla.jpg Doesn't look correct: http://ginger-or-mary-ann.com/CitricAcidIE.jpg While we're at it, according to the w3.org HTML validator, the MediaWiki TOC code seems to generate incorrect HTML. Niteowlneils 23:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) (moved to its own section)

I didn't see exactly the problem that you were seeing, using IE 5.1. But I did see *a* problem, which went away when I fixed a missing and then closed the table. How does it look now? Elf 01:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Beeeautiful--exactly as I assumed was intended, on IE5.5, Netscape 7, Opera 7, and Mozilla 1.4. Here I was mostly focusing on the table-related tags, given the nature of the problem.  Also helped with Netscape 4.77--the table wasn't showing up at all, but now is, altho slammed left (of course the right pane is at the very bottom of most if not all pages with 4.77). Niteowlneils 02:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

main function
is there any full form for main.function in c.please let me know venkata_sukumar2002@yahoo.com
 * "Full form" is unclear in meaning. I wrote this person to say so and to encourage a clarification. -- Jmabel 19:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * int main(int argc, char *argv[]) ? Presuming you meant the prototype... This should be a the refdesk, in any case...

POV & NPOV
I'm still puzzled by this concept and wondered if you could enlighten me.

Suppose I were writing 500 years ago in Ye Olde Wykipedia and I put: "Travel north and you will reach the North Pole". Someone else would have come along and changed this to: "It is claimed that if you travel north you will reach the North Pole." Fair enough - they wouldn't have wanted to be burned alive at what was claimed by church authorities to be a stake.

But times have changed. It would be absurd for anyone now to claim that you could travel in any direction other than north to reach the North Pole. Therefore NPOV is time-dependent, based on the state of current knowledge.

Now when I have knowledge about something, surely it is more useful for my readers to know that something is true rather than just claimed to be so, i.e. this is an important distinction to make in a so-called encyclopedia. How do I make that distinction without well-meaning trolls coming along and changing all my certain truths into mere claims? The answer must have something to do with the authority of the original writer. Or is this a lost cause, and I have to accept one of the weaknesses of the wikipedia conception is that all its truths are mere claims, all part of the trend towards relativism wherein nothing can really be known by anyone. Matt Stan 18:16, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Most statements in Wikipedia simply sit there as statements, and no one has contested them as POV. Fringe views are usually indicated as such. Keep in mind, though, Wikipedia is not primary research. It is at most a secondary and often a tertiary source. That is the nature of an encyclopedia. As a rule, on any matter where controversy exists, it is best to indicate the source of a claim. This tends to be particularly important in areas that are inherently POV (importance of a particular work of literature, a definition of "left-wing" in politics, names of a city that has had different official languages at different times). It also certainly crops up for disputable issues in history (causes of the French Revolution, origins of a prehistoric tribe). But it should not generally arise for a modern figure's birth dates, or whether the United States has a written constitution (although, in that last case, it certainly would come up for discussions of the relationship between Supreme Court decisions and that constitution). -- Jmabel 19:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ancillary question: if only things which are accepted to be generally known don't have to claimed to be known under wikipedia NPOV guidelines, and things which aren't generally known do have to be claimed to be known, then surely wikipedia cannot in and of itself ever claim to push forward the extent of knowledge - it will always be held back absolutely by the NPOV dogma. Matt Stan 19:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. True. This is precisely what is meant by the policy of not doing primary research here. This is about disseminating knowledge, not promulgating new theories. -- Jmabel 19:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But my point is that if the reader doesn't already know about what he or she is reading then that reader couldn't know whether or not the material was disseminated or new. Back to my North Pole point. If I was the first explorer who'd ever actually been to the North Pole and had published my learned paper at the National Geographic Society, then reviewers who hadn't read that paper might still come along and imply that travelling north might not really take you to the North Pole, because there might be another point of view. How do I indicate that I am disseminating something that is known rather than something that is just claimed to be known, in order to that readers might make the useful distinction that I am concerned about?

This is a general problem about disseminating knowledge even in a University if the professor isn't the primary source he can disseminate a knowledge that is proven false by other. This lead to epistemology what is a scientific truth ? It's something that's is reconized as true by the scientists... When will scientific truth become "the Truth" for the common man : when it has been largely disseminated and accepted by a large majority.... Ericd 19:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I have gotten very lost by this entire conversation, which I believe I understood at first. Matt, this is a case where I think we need a concrete example.  Please point to an article and a claim of truth you want to make there, so I can have an example to mull over?  Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 20:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Somebody put this on my talk page, regarding the evolution of an article, I suppose, or perhaps a bit of wikicynicism:


 * A: "X is a fact"
 * B: "Some claim that X is true"
 * A: "The view that X is true is becoming increasingly prevalent"
 * B: "Some claim the view that X is true is becoming increasingly prevalent"
 * A: "According to the esteemed Mr Y, X is true"
 * B: "According to Mr Y, revered by the proponents of X, X is true.

Nothing there about anyone knowing anything! To give an example, as requested, I have been editing the Fathers' rights page, a potentially contentious subject if there ever was one, no doubt (or as some might claim)! Now I also happen to be a divorced father, and a media spokesperson and trustee of a national UK charity called Fathers Need Families. I encounter much that is generally not known in the secret world of family law. I have been exhorted by Bob Geldof to get political. It therefore might be that my polemics are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Might I not acheive more by setting up a personal blog somethwere else? On the other hand this is a topical issue that many might find interesting, and one that is climbing up the political agenda. Therefore Wikipedia is an obvious place to provide up-to-date information about how the situation develops (as it did during 9-11). My challenge, which I think only wikipedia can provide, is to produce a piece that stands in spite of everybody having the opportunity to wreck it. Then it will have a far far greater likelihood of being taken as true than if I had just promulgated it without wikipedia's relentless peer reviev process. Therefore wiki exposure is a crucial part of my polemic itself. My problem, though, has been one of muted accusations of NPOV and my writing has been hacked about a bit by people acting in good faith (I think) to apply the NPOV dogma to something they know very little about, or find very hard to believe. In general I have found the application of NPOV to my work to be constructive and helpful. But the result has on occasion been that the article is made to say the opposite of what according to Mr Y, revered by proponents of X, is true. - which I see as the application of NPOV leading to the dissemination of misinformation. This led to my musings and ramplings here about the true and claimed nature of NPOV. There are plenty of excamples if you delve into the Page History of the Fathers' rights page, though I can dig some out and put them here if requested. Matt Stan 18:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Matt, I guess I'd say, though I don't know the subject well, that an editor who knows they are biased on an issue (perhaps so much so that Wikipedia isn't the optimal place for them to edit, or at least they themselves suggest that) is someone who should be more careful than ever to attribute ideas rather than declare facts. We don't say "fathers have fewer rights than ever in the United Kingdom", we say "Fathers have lost rights X, Y, and Z in the United Kingdom as a result of ABC legislation."  It is easy to be convinced that something is a plain fact when in fact it is an attributal piece of data.  Some people look at a poll that says "75% of Americans support gay marriage" and believe that they should put the fact "Most Americans support gay marriage" in Wikipedia.  In actuality, all they can say is that a certain poll indicates that (or a number of polls, or most polls, or whatever you like).  The more controversial a subject and the more biased one believes they are likely to be, the more important it is to be very careful in attribution.  It is frustrating at first, I know.  In time you'll see, I trust, that it can't be any other way here.  I do know that some people, in the name of NPOV, skew articles away from neutrality -- the only answer, I believe, is to work it out by finding middle ground, respecting opposing viewpoints, and generally demonstrating on the talk page that you know what you're talking about but you are interested in a good NPOV article and want to find a compromise that satisfies as many people as possible.  Not easy, but it's very nice when you can acheive it.  I hope my thoughts make some kind of sense. :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you may have hit the mail on the head with I do know that some people, in the name of NPOV, skew articles away from neutrality. I shall remain on guard. And of course one of the beauties of the wikiwiki is that all the evidence is preserved in the page history for anyone who cares to find out. I shall carry on contributing until a new obsession possesses me. Matt Stan 19:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Link colors/signature
I'm new. I don't understand why some links are red and others are blue. I've tried searching around for an answer with no luck. Also the "signature" button doesn't appear to be working for me- when I press it, the screen kinda shifts, and a "-" apears, but not sig. Can anyone help me? -elliott shultz


 * The red links are for articles that don't exist yet (i.e. there is no text in them), whereas the blue ones are for articles that have been saved. Depending on your preferences, you might have links of another color for very small articles (stubs). To write a signature just type or ~ (adds timestamp) . I don't use the toolbar so I have no idea what's going on with it. hth Dori | Talk 17:28, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * The toolbar buttons are quite new and we are still looking for feedback from new users about how good it is or not. What do you think of it? Also what web browser are you using... different browsers support different toolbar functions. For now you can do what Dori said to get a signature (it will appear after you save the page). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:33, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow! I was expecting to check back for an answer in a couple days! thanks guys. I got the timestamp/name down I think. I like the toolbar, but the signature button doesn't seem to work for me. I'm using Netscape 7.1 on Windows ME. While we're here, do I need to add a comment everytime I edit an article? Thank You! -Elliott Shultz 18:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding comments, it's always nice and recommended to put something in the summary (see Summary) so that people have an idea of what's going on. Major changes (especially deletions) on heavily edited articles should probably be discussed first on the talk page. Dori | Talk 18:07, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * The buttons are JavaScript. I have confirmed they only seem to work as intended when using IE (the ones I tried don't work for me using Mozilla, Opera, or Netscape). Niteowlneils 00:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Netzero users?
I just got the following email:

Dude, this is now my fourth e-mail you have banned 67.74.81.169. I am loggin on through Netzero so my IP is always going to hae 67.74 in the beginning of it....please unblock your FAR OVER-REACHING ban on such IPs you are hindering me from making progress on MY user page and reseach projects. PLEASE STOP.

The problem is that the range *has* to be blocked in order to block the vandal, if he takes the time to power cycle his modem. Suggestions?


 * And, yes, he's sent me four emails - the one I pasted is just an example. Pakaran. 16:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * One way of mitigating the problem is to allow previously-existing users that are not on a username blacklist to log in from otherwise banned IPs. New users could not be created from those IPs, and non-logged in edits would not be allowed. Now with this IP-changing vandalism, it may be necessary to extend the idea... This has been suggested before... thought it got implemented? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I just don't know how I could have hancled that situation *without* a range block (and one covering the vast majority of the range this one does). Pakaran. 16:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * On another note, I was initially going to block 67.94.96/20 or something, but the bad user once showed up *just* before the beginning of that range.... Pakaran. 16:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Couldn't you do it by blocking the range for anonymous edits, but allowing non-blocked usernames? Mark Richards 23:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we can't -- not mustn't, but can't -- do that as the software presently works. Pakaran. 15:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting - where can I learn more about the technical issues involved? Thanks Mark Richards 07:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oldest Article
moved to Wikipedia's oldest articles

TV Guide covers
Is a TV Guide cover fair use, say, a cover of Oprah in the Oprah article, a Cookie Monster cover in the Cookie Monster article, that sort of thing? -- user:zanimum


 * No. They're copyrighted by TV Guide (now owned by Gemstar). None of them are old enough to be out of copyright. DavidWBrooks 14:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the question whether it is fair use is independent of that. See Fair use. Use the "Can we realistically get a free image of this person / object / fictional thing" guideline. In cases of individuals, even celebrities, the answer is usually yes.


 * The matter is complicated by the fact that companies try to expand the concept of copyright beyond all expectations. For example, in Germany, the artist couple de:Christo und Jeanne-Claude temporarily wrapped the Reichstag in cloth. They successfully sued a postcard maker for copyright violations because he had taken and published his own photos of the Reichstag. They claimed that the art of the wrapping itself was copyrightable, and this was confirmed by Germany's highest court.


 * So if you took a picture of someone in a cookie monster costume, the copyright owner of the "cookie monster" might well sue you for violation on the same principle.


 * The truth is that the very idea of intellectual property is totally fucked up, and more and more people are starting to notice that.&mdash;Eloquence 15:21, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Spambot
Wikipedia is suffering a distributed spambot attack. The bot adds links to a site called "emmss", from around 10 different IP addresses. It's probably made over 1000 edits. The following wikis may need help cleaning up:


 * ms - done
 * gn - done
 * gl - done
 * fy - done
 * ja - done
 * sq - done

-- Tim Starling 14:13, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm making a few people sysops on those wikis temporarily, in case anyone's wondering. -- Tim Starling 14:31, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks to Fuzheado and Andre Engels for cleaning up several wikis, Suisui who worked on ja, and gwicke and jeronim working on the technical side. -- Tim Starling 15:10, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all for stopping this severe attack. Ellywa 17:37, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fortunately on cy the spambot only edited our sandbox! (Must be a virtue of only being a small Wikipedia!) -- Arwel 00:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it's more like being lucky - gl, fy and ms are not much larger than cy, and gn is a lot smaller (vandalizing 20 pages on a 3-page Wikipedia - that's what I call large scale vandalism!) - Andre Engels 11:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A moment in Wikipedia history
Greatest. Wikipedia Quote. Ever. From History of Somalia:


 * In 1935, the British were pretty sick of Somalia.

Runner-up, from the same page, is:


 * Ethiopia's favorite national past time, i.e. "Lets go conquer the Somalis".

-- Walt Pohl 11:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This was written by User:Vroman, who also has a tendency to upload copyrighted images. Someone may want to go through his contributions.&mdash;Eloquence 11:09, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Guidence for admission in C.P.E
Respected Sir, I have honour to learn about common Professional Examination.I am a law graduate (LL.B.) from Pakistan.Besides it i have done masters in Political Science.I have also done Human Rights diploma from Faculty of Law, University of Peshawar with the colloberation of university of Oslo, Norway.I am doing practise of law from last three years. Now, i am intrested to equip my self with law in England and for this purpose as per my information i have to do C.P.E. Therefore, I may be provided with guidelines/requirements for the same and obliged. Sincerely yours Hassan Agha hasn_akhan@yahoo.com hassanqazalbash@hotmail.com


 * Excellent. I'm not sure I understand your question / comment though. Could you clarify? Thank you, Mark Richards 07:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vote: proposed policy to ban any user for 24 hours who engages in revert wars
Vote on the proposed policy to grant sysops the power to ban a user for 24 hours if they engage in revert wars. All replies/comments to that page please. fabiform | talk 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note to the person who's been blanking this page
Have you checked out http://www.wikinfo.org ? They encourage a sympathetic point of view editorial style which you may find preferable to Wikipedia, and you can build on the existing work here via an automated import system. Build up where you'll be welcomed; don't waste your time here. --Brion 07:50, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * What happened today? i found this page was kept being destroyed today! Who's suppressing critical discussion of Wikipedia by the news media? :S --Yacht 09:15, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Press Release
I'm asking Wikipedia, please, please, every user, send off the Press releases/February 2004 press release off to your local paper, a few local papers, a dozen papers in Tibet. We need to get this out to the media, and can only do it with your help! Even contacting one local paper will make a world of difference. Secretlondon once said, "If some of the people who helped write the thing had helped send it out we would have the world covered by now." -- user:Zanimum


 * Just the release itself? Do we need to write a cover letter? How should this be done? --Jiang 19:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If someone could put together some kind of standard form letter or instructions, that would be helpful. I mean, how seriously would a local paper take an emailed press release from some random person (like me)? --Minesweeper 02:33, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ditto on these requests. I looked at the press release page when it first came out but couldn't figure out what I was supposed to say or include in my email, so did nuthin'. Elf 03:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Find instructions at How to send a press release


 * Any journalists working at WP? :O --Yacht 05:17, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

How do I 'claim' a not-logged-in edit?
I forgot to log in; how do I 'claim' an edit as my own, so that my login name shows up in the page history instead of my IP address? I know I saw information about this once, but I've just now scoured the Wikipedia help, and I can't find the information again. Brian Kendig 00:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Log in, make a trivial edit, then claim credit for the IP address in "Summary." pstudier 00:54, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * Go here: Changing attribution for an edit. You can show you're that IP and the edits you made with that IP can be added to your user contributions.  fabiform | talk 00:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

History of the Middle East
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS - Reply in the Requests for comment section

I want this article to focus on Southwest Asia, although not completely exclude Northern Africa.

Here's an example of what I want in the article...

The entire Ottoman section should be left alone in this regard, as the North African lands are part of their empire, and whatever happens there affects Southwest Asia. However, in this sentence... "When republican revolutions brought radical anti-western regimes to power in Egypt in  1954, in Syria in 1963, in Iraq in 1968 and in Libya in 1969, the Soviet Union,   seeking to open a new arena of the Cold War in the Middle East, allied itself with Arab rulers such as   Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Saddam Hussein of Iraq."

IMO, Libya should be taken out there, as this doesn't show interactions between them and the Southwest Asian countries. Yet Egypt should stay, as they are better connected to the other Middle Eastern countries, and part of their country is in Asia.

I also want to put "This article is a general overview of the history of the Middle East, (This article uses the Southwest Asia definition). For more detailed information, see articles on the histories of individual countries. For North Africa, see History of Africa.", but Adam Carr doesn't want me to do this.

Perhaps I should have "This article is a general overview of the history of the Middle East, For more detailed information, see articles on the histories of individual countries. For more detailed information on countries in North Africa, see History of Africa.

See: Talk:History of the Middle East for more information.

Discuss about it in Requests_for_comment WhisperToMe 23:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) DO NOT REPLY TO THIS - Reply in the Requests for comment section


 * Is your question whether Egypt can be considered part of the Middle East or not? -- User:Docu

HR-3261
Called the Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act - ?alabio kindly left this on my talk: Very interesting... Wired news story

Online Moderation

 * (Cross-posted from the reference desk because it related directly to wikipedia)

I'm writing a paper comparing different forms of online moderation (which I plan to include Wikipedia in). Administrators contains a pretty good description of how our system of moderation works. I'd like the equivalent of that for other important sites (slashdot comes to mind). Thanks for the help. &rarr;Raul654 21:30, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia doesn't currently have an effective moderation system. It has several structures but grossly inadequate routine enforcement at the early stages of poor conduct, which cause the poor conduct to grow and discourage the community. That's my opinion as a long-time moderator of online communities. Jamesday 06:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removing Opentask/Merge Notation
I have merged the U.S.-North Korea article that is currently listed in the Opentask/Merge notation. How do I remove the article from that listing? (I'm just a bit confused I guess, since I assumed that the Opentask list was created by the database finding random articles with the Duplicate boilerplate tag. The U.S.-North Korea article has had that removed, so I'm not clear on how that article remains in the Opentask notation.) --Wolf530 19:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Image namespace bug (:Image:Image) or confusion?
I'm confused enough about the various namespaces already, so I can't figure out whether this is a bug or a feature. There's an image at Image:AustrCattleDogBlueFace wb.jpg. Somehow I inadvertently type Image:Image:AustrCattleDogBlueFace wb.jpg (duplicating the :Image part), which takes me here. It displays a brand-new page, *with* the image, but without any of the text or history of the image. Clearly it thinks it's a different *article* but the same *image*, but why that combination? And should it allow this? Elf 19:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Intriguingly, Image:User:AustrCattleDogBlueFace_wb.jpg has the same result, but Image:Dog:AustrCattleDogBlueFace_wb.jpg doesn't - the second namespace has to be valid in order to be ignored (even Special: and MediaWiki: behave the same). Also, the Image: has to come first, and you can't have more than two levels of nesting - neither User:Image:AustrCattleDogBlueFace_wb.jpg nor Image:Image:Image:AustrCattleDogBlueFace_wb.jpg contains the image. This may give someone familiar with The Source&trade; a clue as to what's going on here; or it might just have been a vaguely amusing use of 5 minutes of my life. ;-) IMSoP 22:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

External images
y can i use external images in Chinese WP(don't need to upload), while it's not allowed in English WP? --Yacht 17:28, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * IIRC it was disallowed on en: because it became a popular defacement to add a link to the hello.jpg. It also has the advantage that everything - text and images - are present on the same server, so it's easier to download the "full" wikipedia. andy 20:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Need suggestion on formatting
I tried to add the PIN format for Chennai. Right now, I've added it as 600 ddd. I used d to represent any digit. Is it ok? or Should it be 600 xxx or any other Wiki format? TIA -- Rrjanbiah 12:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * xxx is probably best, but there is no set format for this. The Postal Index Number article is a little weak because it's scope is so small. Could you write an article on the Indian Postal Service and include the PIN content there? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I'll use xxx. My language is bit weak. So, I don't know how to write such non-technical (historical) page. Anyway, I'll try to do my level best. --Rrjanbiah 05:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If you feel able to add the basic data, then do it. There are many people around here who will "mercilessly" edit the language to make it read well. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikimap
Is there any map work going on in Wiki? or Could I suggest you such map project? -- Rrjanbiah 12:08, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If you mean adding maps to wikipedia articles, then WikiProject Maps would be a good starting point. However we are still in the process of defining the map styles we prefer. You're welcome to join there if you like to create maps yourself, there's also a subpage where you can request maps. For a more broad view Maps is about doing something like automated map creating. andy 12:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * See also Maps for some resources. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not aware of Maps--this is what I was suggesting. --Rrjanbiah 05:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Getting help on editing/grammar
I'm kinda newcomer here. I like to know is there anyway to get grammar/editing help from other native speakers (My first language is Tamil). (I'm not referring peer reiview) -- Rrjanbiah 12:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Normally when you post something with broken grammar/spelling, there'll be someone lurking on the Recent Changes to check your additions and fix it eventually. But sometimes it slips through, and then it will only be fixed if someone stumbles upon it later. But as long as your writing is comprehensible even a bad grammar article with good facts is better than good writing without the facts. So don't worry too much about it. If you still worry you can also add the article in question in Cleanup, but the list there is growing faster than being purged :-( andy 12:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Cleanup is what I was looking for.--Rrjanbiah 05:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Restore Page
I read the mandrake article, and saw that at the bottom of the article it had a list of other things mandrake might refer to. So, I thought, I'll move this page to Mandrake_(plant), and make this a disambiguation page. But now, the Mandrake_(plant) page contains the disambig page, and the mandrake page makes a redirect, and I'm sure I never typed a redirect. What happened, and how should I get back the original article? Sietse 10:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems like you did edit mandrake (plant) instead of mandrake, maybe because the second one redirected you to the first one - that's what the move did automatically. If you want to edit a redirect you need to click on the link "redirected from" in the top of the page. I fixed it for you now - but you still need to set the links to Mandrake to their correct target. andy 11:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Will do. I'd already started, but stopped when I noticed the problem. Thanks!
 * Sietse 14:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bird, SoCal, Raptor, Bad Faith, etc.
-->User talk:David Newton/Bird Dispute

Thumbnail borders... what do you want to see?
There's less than a week left to make suggestions in the design competition to replace the grey border & magnifying glass icon around thumbnails. Even if you don't have the time/ inclination/ html knowledge to suggest a replacement yourself, please come and vote in the straw poll to say which features you most want to see. :) fabiform | talk 04:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Concern about Grape seed oil
The following section was removed by Pcb21, stating that he/she was removing something else. I presume it was an error and am restoring it. (Pcb21, if you meant to remove this, please explain why, and/or suggest a better palce to put it):
 * I am somewhat concerned about medical information offered in grape seed oil, but am not an expert in the area. I have made a few preliminary notes at Talk:grape seed oil, but would like to ask someone more knowledgeable to have a look. Hopefully VP is the right forum for this sort of thing. Securiger 17:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--Securiger 02:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I moved some material to the talk page. If I took too much someone should put it back, but if it is questionable, it should not be in the article.  -- WormRunner 05:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The removal was a complete accident, I don't even know when I did it :)! Apologies. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Buena Vista Social Club lost completely: developers, help!
I tried to move it for disambiguation. A a result, I've got a page with


 * 1) REDIRECT _Buena_Vista_Social_Club_(movie) -- (to an empty page)

and no history!

Developers, please restore. Mikkalai 21:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not a developer, but the problem seems to be the leading "_" which is trimmed away by the DB lookup. -- till we *) 21:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Underscores are inserted by the engine. Removal of them doesn't help. Mikkalai 23:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The page was somehow moved to an invalid title. This shouldn't be possible, it's a security flaw. I've renamed it using an SQL query to Buena Vista Social Club (movie), and will look into the matter. -- Tim Starling 03:46, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Move can't overwrite a redirect anymore??
It seems that the move function will no longer allow me to overwrite a page that's never been anything but a redirect. Would someone please delete Halva (most common English spelling) and move Halvah there. Mkweise 21:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Certainly. However, I note Halva _does_ have a page history, so there is no change.  Morwen 21:25, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Before going too far with this, note that AHD4 online has an entry under "halvah," no entry under "halva," and describes "halva" as a variant spelling of "halvah." In other words... why do you say "Halva" is the more frequent spelling? Dpbsmith 21:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think a Google search was the source, although frankly I agree with you that I'd always thought "Halvah" was the correct spelling (my mother always spelled it that way). Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Google shows that halva is by far the most common spelling, and halvah isn't even 2nd:

halva: 182k google hits halwa: 36k halvah: 32k helva: 14k


 * Halvah is the Jewish spelling, and may at times be used to refer specifically to the Jewish (heavily sesame-flavored) variety. Mkweise 21:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anyone ever edit at Wikibooks?
I need help. The university project that has been working at Customer experience management has hit snags here, and the project leader, Karsten, has been talking with me about how to solve things. I suggested Wikibooks, and he's agreed that the project they're trying to do is a better fit for Wikibooks (at least, as I explained Wikibooks). Problem is, I've never moved stuff to Wikibooks, and I've never worked there, so I really need an editor who knows something about Wikibooks to volunteer to help Karsten (who is a very intelligent and pleasant person, and most willing to learn) transfer the stuff over to Wikibooks and be a point of contact there should he have questions. I've asked on their mailing list (which seems very infrequently used), but I was hoping there'd be someone here who'd know. Please help if you can! Jwrosenzweig 17:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Try posting your message to the Wikibooks:Staff lounge. --mav 08:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, silly me. Thank you, mav. Jwrosenzweig 16:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New Wiki idea
I would like to start a wikitree editable family tree. I don't know if wikimedia would be willing to administer the system... Perl 15:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you checked out Genes Connected, which is a spin-off of Friends Reunited? --Phil 15:48, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. How about WikiFamily? Ludraman | Talk 18:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

conditions for using banners and logs of Wikipedia
What kind of condition I can use banners or logs of Wikipedia on?

What the term "Feel free to grab these for your website." on Banners and buttons mean? Can I use these banners not under terms of GNU Free Documentation License or only under GFDL?

How about logs of Wikipedia?

Sorry for my poor English.

Thank you! --MIzusumashi 14:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right, as it is you might think that they are under the GFDL, but they should be public domain. Still, if you just want to put up a banner with a link to Wikipedia, I don't think anyone will complain, and you can probably do so under fair use anyway. I'll leave a not on the banner talk page and see if the authors can update their images to be public domain. Dori | Talk 17:16, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer and proposal on Wikipedia talk:Banners and buttons!
 * If some banners were public domain, we could update some banners on other language Wikipedia(s) - some of them made from English version banners -. (I'm user of Wikipedia Japanese.)--MIzusumashi 05:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

information
hi i'm called jonathan boysoft from cameroon.i have the age of 18 and i school and leave with my parents .i also do drawing alittle bit of painting and designs.actually i want to imform you that seeing into my own self that your company produicies lots of cars i have also desided to produce two cars models for the toyota company to see or why not produce.these marks are the (voltan 4; and the otic 104 models which i succeded to design.i also want to say that if  you are interested then write me by using my e-mail adress   jonathan_boysoft@yahoo.fr and my school adress which is  ekoko jonathan massango form5science G.B.H.S. deido douala box8335   (cameroon). thanks for yours understanding. from jonathan boysoft.


 * Jonathan, you have the wrong impression of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a car company, but an encyclopedia. You are free to contribute any encyclopedic information about cars or your country if you want. Dori | Talk 17:14, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * It might be entertaining to collect the most amusing requests on Amusing requests to the pump or similar -- Gabriel Wicke 11:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I had the same idea :-) I've put them on Unusual requests. Feel free to move if a different name is more appropriate. -- Wapcaplet 20:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Latin to Cyrillic Unicode converter wanted!
Does anyone know of a Unicode character converter that will transliterate text written in Latin and turn it into the Cyrillic equivalents in Unicode - for instance, turning RESPUBLIKA into the Unicode for &#1056;&#1069;&#1057;&#1055;&#1059;&#1041;&#1051;I&#1050;&#1040;? It would also help if the same converter could translate Windows Cyrillic characters into Unicode. -- ChrisO 10:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this page, but don't forget this one. Pfortuny 08:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What links here
The page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=RCS indicates RCS is linked to by "Concurrent versions system". In fact, it lists it twice! I've fixed the one link it had, and can find no others. What gives? --Pascal666 07:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Found another one. The page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=CVS lists KDE four times and SourceForge twice, even though neither of them point there anymore. --Pascal666 08:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this is a known bug. Take a look at Windows.  Almost none of those pages link there.  If you want to report a bug take a look at Bug reports for instructions. --Minesweeper 08:21, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is a known bug, the link table somtimes does not update correctly. Another page where it is even worse is Wagner - there are more than 10 links listed from LOTR, but only one was there before I fixed that link. Or it had a case shortly ago where a link stayed red whatever I did, it only works now as on Skytrain a redirect to Vancouver Skytrain is used, linking the article directly isn't working. It seems to me that this bug is getting more and more prominent - but maybe just because the broken link tables accumulate, and thus the chances to stumble into such a broken table are rising. andy 08:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup, bugID 802814. Thanks!  --Pascal666 09:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Make wikiproject a namespace
I would like to see 'Wikiproject:' become a namespace, so we can avoid the uberlong Wikipedia:Wikiproject ... Thanks. SV (talk) 06:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I think this is unlikely to happen any time soon. Tuf-Kat 02:47, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * You got my support too. Does this involve any developer bussiness? -- Taku 08:13, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes it would, for various reasons. You could create a page at Wikiproject: Blah (don't do this!) and it would function exactly as if it were an article in the main namespace, though.. but this is no solution. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

USA meet up
Come on down! Sam Spade 05:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

error
There is an error in the spelling of monatomic on one of the pages about helium. I just thought that I would send this message so you all know. I do not know how many other errors there are on this word but I thought I would let you know that there was at least one. Monatomic was typed in as monoatomic instead.

Sincerely, Dan Knapp


 * Dan, you can go ahead and fix it, just click on "Edit this page" when you notice something wrong and correct it! - Nunh-huh 03:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia allows both American English and British English spellings of words. The British spelling Monoatomic is just as correct as the American spelling Monatomic -- Popsracer 13:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Spellings should be consistent to a particular dialect across a single article though.. and given we have "odorless" and "colorless" in the first line or two... I think it is safe to say this particular article (Helium) has been bagged by the Americans :-). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Monoatomic is a rare spelling, even in Britain. I don't have the OED to hand, but The Times Digital Archive 1785-1985 has nine citations for monatomic and none for monoatomic.  A trawl through Google's results shows that the spelling monoatomic is used mostly in the context of pseudoscience.  -- Heron 09:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Greek Letters
Anybody happen to know how Georgios Papanikolaou would be written in the Green alphabet? jengod

I would hazard something like &Gamma;&epsilon;&omicron;&rho;&gamma;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Pi;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&upsilon; but I'm probably wrong :) Dysprosia 03:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Nearly, but you're forgetting the accents! (Sorry about the mishmash of HTML entities and Unicode - Wikipedia does weird things to posted Greek characters. Does anyone know of a handly online converter?) &Gamma;&epsilon;&#974;&#961;&#947;&#953;&#959;&#962; &#928;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&#957;&#953;&#954;&#959;&#955;&#940;&#959;&#965;. And there's a website with a picture of his bust here. -- ChrisO 12:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This should do the trick in Unicode: &#915;&#949;&#974;&#961;&#947;&#953;&#959;&#962; &#928;&#945;&#960;&#945;&#957;&#953;&#954;&#959;&#955;&#940;&#959;&#965; -- ChrisO 14:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Help me make this article NPOV?
I recently added a lot of information to the Microsoft antitrust case article. However, another user believes the article to be biased, and has added a disclaimer saying so to the top of the page. I've discussed it with him offsite; he can't point to anything specific he believes to be biased in my additions to the article, but he believes the general tone of what I added is biased, perhaps in my choice of what facts to add. Would someone else please have a look at the article and either help me bring it further NPOV or else remove the disclaimer? - Brian Kendig 23:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * An NPOV header needs to be substantiated, Brian. In other words, it is not good enough to say "I object to this", you must say why you object. A vague "I don't like the presentation of the article" doesn't cut it. On these grounds, I removed the header. Tannin 23:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I found a passage in there that comprised allegations against Bill Gates but which offered no source to explain who was making the allegations about his courtroom demeanor. The non-durable links pointed to sites outside of wikipedia. I removed the offending point of view. It appeared the writer either wanted to deprecate Gates or was so acustomed to deprecating Gates it seemed normal to post allegations without saying who made them. Negative connotation 08:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * so acustomed to deprecating Gates it seemed normal 


 * This sadly seems to be a systematic bias in Wikipedia articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If I disclosed enough identifying data, Microsoft's database could tell them I am no fan of Bill Gates, but this sort of uninformed hatred is scarcely the way to approach the situation. The open source movement can be as aggressive and improprietous in its marketing approach as can any corporate machine. My objection to the approach is that it is reactionary and stands in place of effect approaches to dialogue that would allow progressive community trusts to gain market share.


 * At this point in Wikipedia's development I believe aggressive confrontation of covert political manipulation in the context of articles or community interaction, with attention toward construction of language and precise logical coherence, will best serve the project, the readers, the world at large and life in general.Reality check


 * I believed that providing a link to the offsite article which gave the quote was enough. I now understand that it wasn't, and I've amended the Wikipedia article to directly attribute the quote as well as providing the offsite link.  I have as much interest in presenting an unbiased account of the facts as anyone else here does; please do not assume "uninformed hatred" or "covert political manipulation" where cluelessness sufficed. Brian Kendig 00:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I imaging it feels crummy to know someone suspects your of spreading hateful thoughts, but supressing honest opinions is not the way to get to the bottom of these things. I agree Gates is a bit of a corporate thug, but I recognize that his thuggishness is used to justify thuggishness among his critics. For many of us who have confronted these behaviors for decades, it matters less what a persons political, relgious or cultural affiliations are than it does what standards they set in human relations.


 * Now for many, I dare say the main stream, those standards involve the basic social niceities - please, thank you, that kind of stuff. But for me and some folks I work with, those things are salve for a corrupt language that is used to convey information about how other people should be treated. Anytime a person is reduced to a symbol we can suspect that there is emotional manipulatin going on.


 * In your case, I trust that you honestly want to be free of these influences, but as you admit, you don't know how. It is our position that it is best to be very frank and none too gentle in telling people they are being used to advance dehumanizing memes. After one has stood in a few race riots, it is much easier to aggressively confront the ways of thought that underly much human conflict, and to ignore the emotional pleas of those who don't wish to be so confronted. Though you did not appreciate the approach, I am glad you found it effective and thank you for reinforcing my confidence in the direct approach when it comes to confronting depradation of human rights or dignity. Despite cocktail party contempt among some Wikipedians for those who are more interested in fairness than niceness, I am sure Wikipedia is better because of your now improved understanding. Scene2Much


 * Excuse me? I'm "supressing [sic] honest opinions?"  I was "thuggish?"  I "don't know how" to be free of these influences, and you have to be "none too gentle" to tell me I'm being "used to advance dehumanizing memes?"  This is NOT an issue of "depradation of human rights or dignity."  This is an issue of me wanting someone to read my edits and say, "Hey, you really ought to attribute those quotes directly in the Wikipedia article rather than relying on offsite links."  That's exactly the sort of feedback I was looking for -- and if someone else wanted to add the attributions instead of waiting for me to, so much the better!  It makes no sense for someone to read my edit and assume I'm on a smear campaign and start throwing around words such as "hatred" and "manipulation."  That doesn't do anyone here on Wikipedia any good, and I'm insulted by the insinuation that I'm somehow too corrupt to see my own corruption.  I doubted the NPOV of what I wrote, and so I came here asking other people to help me balance the article; what should I have done differently? Brian Kendig 14:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

University of Bristol
I am a little uneasy about recent edits in University of Bristol by someone from an IP address (137.222.50.154) at that institution. Nothing terrible but a bit of a PoV feel (to me) and perhaps some kind of agenda, maybe an official Bristol one, being promoted. Claims about its prestige, claims about mediocre depts holding back the ratings. Maybe it's OK really but I would be grateful if someone with more experience than I would take a look at it please. 82.35.17.203 20:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The same user said something very similar at Imperial College, London. I moved it to talk without having seen his edits to other articles. The user clearly has a point s/he wants to make! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Search engine limitation?
I have a search-engine question over at the Talk:Ballard,_Seattle,_Washington page.

--c3k 17:04, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Replied there. By the way, someone needs to align the two search forms at MediaWiki:Googlesearch as it doesn't look very professional right now. If you're not an admin, just paste it on the talk page, and someone will get it. Dori | Talk 17:11, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Check MediaWiki talk:Googlesearch. Lupo 09:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * And pasted in successfully. Thankyou Lupo! Tannin 10:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Making most wanted more useful?
At the moment, Special:Wantedpages is not updated automatically, but created only once in some days (to help the servers with their burden). That is okay -- but what is confusing is the use of edit links, because they stay red. That is no problem if Wantedpages is generated every time one calls it, but in the current state of affairs, it would be more useful if one actually can see if a wanted page (say: Toto (band), which is still listed on the top of most wanted) has been created by someone else in the meantime. So I propose to introduce another link (to the page, not to editing the page) for every item in the Special:Wantedpages to make it easier to check if the item got created meanwhile. -- till we *) 13:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I *STRONLGY* agree with the above - there's no way of telling which ones have been written and which ones haven't. &rarr;Raul654 16:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, the current situation for this (and other special pages) isn't that great. A solution could be to place the content on Most_Wanted_Articles and edit it there. Special:Wantedpages would just suggest to look there. -- User:Docu


 * Additionally, the script needs some work, many many of the most wanted pages list ten or more links to the Most_Wanted_ articles page.....  this is _not_ useful. I love killing wanted, it's sorta my hobby, but it's getting frustrating.  Additionally, the CURRENT version has a just plain wrong wanted as the first one (Deaddead) with over 32K wants...   uh  No  Rick Boatright 05:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ouch! I suspect this of being a dummy value in the scripts that's being interpreted literally for some reason - it's even showing up as the target of a redirect from As of 2000! Perhaps a developer could look into this and find out what's going on (maybe the same bug as the other whatlinkshere problems, or an attempted fix?) - IMSoP 18:57, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talking to Wikipedians using UserTalk
I was wondering how do you talk with other Wikipedians using UserTalk if they don't have a link to their talk page? JB82 15:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * They have a link to their user page. Hit that, then hit "Discuss this page" to get to their talk page. Does that answer your question? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deleting a page
How does a Wikipedian go about deleting a page? JB82 16:55, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * In general we don't like deleting pages - we'd prefer to see them fixing in some way, if possible. See Deletion policy for more, and how to delete a page when it really needs to be deleted. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The logging-out bug
Could somebody please fix the bug that causes a user to become logged-out when they hit the "Save Page" button after editing an article, and now also causes the edit to be lost. (It used to be that if you got logged out in this way you could hit "Back" and your edit would still be there. Now it lost for good.) This has happened to me twice in recent days, causing me to lose a lot of work. I know others have complained about this bug for a long time, but it has never been fixed. (Yes I know I should save all edits somewhere else before attempting to "Save Page," but I don't always remember.) Adam 04:32, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What exactly happens when you try to save the page? Does it time out? Does it return a blank page? Does it give an error message? What happens if you click refresh after the error? What happens if you click back? What happens if you click back and then refresh? When you go to another page after this has happened, does it appear as if you are logged out? Does it ever seem to spontaneously log you back in? How were the answers to these questions different before the problem got worse? Can you remember the time of the error and article title, so that we can look up the event in the log files? -- Tim Starling 10:08, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I doubt this is worth much, but I have never seen this problem across the various OS/browser flavours I've editted with. I always use permanent log-in.. is the problem limited to people who log in for one browser session only, possibly, maybe? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Put it on Votes for Deletion or one of the other similar pages, depending on the reason for deletion. Andre Engels 09:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Automatic lists
Is there any way to automatically generate a list of related articles? Such as all Unterseeboots that have articles? --Pascal666 03:02, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No, right now there is no such way. Unless you can get what you want by clicking "What links here." The other way is to run a query on the database, administrators used to have access to queries, but I am not sure if that's the case anymoe (it slows down the db server). Dori | Talk 04:55, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Special:Allpages/Unterseeboot might yield what you are looking for. -- User:Docu

Squid problems?
My Netscape 7 only let me see the last four village pump entries in this very big issue after I went into the edit box -- even a forced reload didn't get me actual content. Maybe a problem related to file size and the caching system? -- till we *) 00:12, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've been having a lot of mysterious problems with pages not being up-to-date in the last few days. Edits apparently not taking, and so forth. Forced reloads don't work, emptying my browser's cache doesn't work. I've tried using IE rather than Safari. No difference. What does work for me is to log out of Wikipedia and then log in again. Dpbsmith 03:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Warbox
I know there is a WikiProject Battles battlebox, but is there a page (apparently it's not WikiProject Wars) that itemizes a "warbox"--just want to ask about recent adds to U.S. wars. jengod 23:43, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've seen those as well, but I've never seen a discussion about it...it looks interesting though. Adam Bishop 23:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Overwikification
To be moved to Make only links relevant to the context

I apologize if I'm raising this issue in the wrong forum or if it's already been discussed. But I've noticed several examples of what I'd call overwikification. Check out these articles: List of Ambassadors to Canada, Survivor: Pulau Tiga, Tom Berenger, Twelfth United States Congress. There's over two hundred red links to empty articles on these four pages alone. And looking at the titles of these empties, it's likely nobody is ever going to fill them in with any article, let alone one worth reading.

Maybe we need to discuss some informal standard an empty article needs to rise to before someone creates a red link to it. MK 22:30, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't really see the harm. It's possible that they may just inspire an interested party to write a series of articles for them - it's certainly happened before. Ambivalenthysteria 22:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with MK. I find it prevalent and an annoying irritation. I suspect the practice of wikifiying almost everything regardless of whether the linked article exists was more useful when Wikipedia was getting started. I don't believe a word should be linked unless you either a) know that an article for the linked term exists or b) feel strongly that the article should exist and have a reasonable expectation that someday it will exist. Dpbsmith 22:59, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't speak for everybody, but I "strongly feel" that an article for every member of the U.S. House (past and present) should exist, along with an article on every movie in IMDB and every band at Ultimate Band List. I've got no problem with these articles. Meelar 23:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that in narrative text, overwikification is very annoying. But I'd draw a distinction between narrative text and lists: in lists of films, books, credits, etc, like those pointed to by MK, it's less annoying to have them all wikified. And many of them will come to have articles eventually: several of those in Tom Berenger's list, for example have three or more links to them already. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What Nunh-huh said. On lists like 12th Congress, all of those names eventually (sometime in the next decade) should get articles of their own. In actual articles overwikification is a huge problem, especially with dates. But in lists is cool...


 * What? you want us to re-wikify them all after they exist, which means once the links are available, we have to search them all in wiki and wikify them? I guess that's more annoying! Besides, i have to check out all the links in my article to see if they exist before i submit it. which one is more annoying? i strongly believe that a red link gives Wikipedians a desire to creat it. What we need to worry about, is the vandalism, IMO. PS: I DON'T like repeated wikified links in one article... --Yacht 12:17, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * So people are claiming that there actually will someday be an article on Philémon Yunji Yang, the current Cameroonian ambassador to Canada? A solid biography of Mr Yang (I'm assuming Phil's a mister) and a brief but thorough history of his diplomatic and political career? Hopefully it'll appear before someone else has suceeded him as Ambassador because an article on the former Cameroonian ambassador to Canada seems pointless.


 * If we're going to have a standard that any subject potentially deserves an article because someone may be interested, why do we discourage vanity pages and high school articles?


 * My personal suggestion is that when you're wikifying an article, ask yourself these questions before creating a red link: Should this article exist? Would there be information in this theoretical article that goes beyond what's in this existing article? Is it ever likely to be written? Would someone be likely to be looking for an article with this subject?MK 16:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Very amusing. Phil's been taken care of. Which is one down; one hundred and thirty three to go. Which will complete one page of the four I mentioned. Which were only four random examples of the hundreds of similar pages that surely exist. Starting to get an idea of the size of the job?MK 15:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, MK. The job sounds massive--almost as though someone was trying to build the world's largest free encyclopedia using only volunteer editors. :-)  Seriously, MK, it doesn't sound any more daunting than, well, doing what we've been doing for the last several years.  Red links mean we add more articles.  And frankly, there is a difference between a vanity page for "the owner of Mountlake Terrace's largest 7-Eleven" and an article describing, in brief, the diplomatic actions of Cameroon's representative in Canada.  Are you opposed to an article on the United States' ambassador to the United Kingdom?  If so, I wonder who does qualify for articles.  If not, then why should we look down on ambassadors from poor countries/Third World countries/countries most Wikipedians have not traveled to?  I think there is a bias here.  After all, I'm sure I could find a page full of red links to people MK thinks should have articles, and I can't imagine you want those pages dewikified, else you'll never know the articles need writing.  The problem you are asking to have solved is not a problem, in my opinion. Jwrosenzweig 17:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess there's little point in arguing against the consensus. Personally I think that Anglo-American relations are more objectively important than Cameroonian-Canadian relations and I think this is a reflection of reality not bias. If everything is equally relevant, than why say that an ambassador is more important than a store owner?


 * Let me say again, I have no objection to people writing these pages. The problem is people not writing these pages. But pages are still be creating, literally by the thousands, that nobody will ever write. Do we really want to reach a point where the majority of this project is empty boxes? In my opinion this would make a mockery of what we're doing here. MK 07:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To me this seems to be 2 slightly different arguments going on here, firstly what deserves an article, and secondly that red links are bad. The first argument I am going to steer well away from. The second one however, seems easy, (philosophically at least). If there are a reasonable amount of people who find the missing links annoying we should add a user config option to not display incomplete links, (yes I know this isn't the place to suggest software mods but I was just trying to help solve a disagreement, if others agree I could add the request on sourceforge). In my suggestion there would be 3 choices for the display of bad links, red, question mark or plain text. Steven jones 02:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"neurodermitis melánica"
Looking at a source for the article on Ezequiel Martínez Estrada, I have run into a Spanish-language term I do not know who to translate: "neurodermitis melánica". I have translated this conservatively as "a form of neurodermatitis", but I would like to be more precise. Does anyone know the English-language equivalent? -- Jmabel 22:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the Cancerweb dictionary, neurodermatitis is an extremely variable affliction of the skin caused by prolonged vigorous scratching, and expressing itself in lesion of the skin. Lesion is defined, by the same dictionary, as 'Any pathological or traumatic discontinuity of tissue or loss of function of a part.' So I'd suggest a definition like 'An affliction of the skin caused by prolonged vigourous scratching, the main symptom of which is the skin becoming dysfunctional, be it by flaking, or by ceasing to regenerate, or in any other way.'
 * Melánica appears to come from the Greek word for black. Compare melanism, which in Spanish is melanina; all three words share the same root. Putting these two together, I would guess that the concept in question is some sort of skin affliction which causes or leaves dark blotches on the skin. If you really want to know, I suggest you ask your physician: Spanish terms are close enough to Latin medical jargon for him to make an educated guess. You could also try to contact somebody at a hospital or university: just contact the medical faculty via the website, and ask "Can anybody help me, or else redirect me?" As it's a rather simple question, most people will be glad to help you.
 * Conclusion. I read your article, and personally, I do not think it imperative to actually say what form of dermatitis Mr. Estrada had - the article is very good as it is. However, I agree it's nice to be comprehensive, and if you would prefer to make this final touch, you had best ask a professional for a moment of his/her time.

Sietse

Spoiler Warnings
A technical suggestion: it would be great if a spoiler warning lead to a message in the   of the page in question, rather than just in the body. My feeling is that if you are looking something up in an encyclopedia, you should already be ready for potential spoilers. So I see the spoiler warning as often more useful for people navigating in from Google searches and the like, who might not realize that they are about to get a plot summary. As such, it would be nice to put the warning somewhere that Google searchers will notice it right away. Chinasaur 19:37, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * That seems good lateral thinking to me. Interested in other thoughts on the matter. Andrewa 12:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO those per article spoiler warnings should be depreciated now that we have disclaimer links on the top and bottom of every page. Note that on General disclaimer there is a link to Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable. Spoilers won't harm you in any way - why are spoiler warnings needed in actual articles instead of before and after? --mav


 * I almost never consciously look at the title of a webpage when I go browsing. Dysprosia 04:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could not include any plots in the articles and instead have a Plot of... page. I think this would make it very clear. --Kokiri 09:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's a possible solution but I'd rather find all the info on a movie in one place. Maybe the plot shd always be the last thing on the page. In ANY event, the global "spoiler" disclaimer is not sufficient, IMHO. That would prevent me from ever reading any article! It's common practice in the universe at large (don't really know about anything outside the solar system, though) to put the spoiler warning specifically with the text--either at the top of the article or immediately preceding the spoiler section. But please let's not rely on a generic applies-to-all-articles-in-WP! Elf 21:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tables
about id=toc -->Wikipedia talk:How to use tables

Front page design...
-->Talk:Main Page (table free)

Make Edit Summary compulsory for anonymous users == -->Wikipedia talk:Edit summary

Compulsory summary and copyrights on images
-->Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Script to convert to new table syntax
-->Wikipedia talk:How to use tables

Naming conventions (common names)
-->Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)

Wikipedia:Deadend pages
-->Wikipedia talk:Deadend pages

Recombining protected and unprotected page lists
-->Wikipedia talk:Unprotected page

NetSweeper hates Wikipedia Spanish
The NetSweeper internet monitoring software that blocks out unsavoury sites for parents and school boards alike censors out Wikipedia Spanish as a "Sex Site". Unless it is a risque Wikimedia project that I didn't know about, we should look into getting them to change this automated decision. -- Senor Wences
 * There's a "Website Scanner" you can access from the website (Home Page) which says that it can't categorise http://en.wikipedia.org/ but that http://es.wikipedia.org/ is indeed a "Sex Site". Weird. --Phil 17:58, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not weird at all, in fact I'm very impressed they don't list all the Wikipedias as sex sites considering some of the articles we have. There's no way I'd give a child access to Wikipedia. Jimbo has commented that he wouldn't show it to his mother (or grandmother, forget which).


 * IMO the answer to this is not censorship on the existing project, but an independently filtered version based on the existing (continuing as is) project. Elsewhere I have called this a G-rated Wikipedia.


 * Some day soon I predict it will be worth someone's while to set up such a G-rated Wikipedia. I'd like it to be Wikimedia that does it, but there's insufficient interest at present, so it's possible it will be a fork instead. There are pros and cons to this. Neither exercise is trivial. Andrewa 22:52, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Out of interest, how many people use this stuff? Mark Richards 07:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Downloading the database
On the 'Wikipedia' article it says that one can download the wikipedia database. How can this be done?
 * See Database_download -- user:zanimum

Main page thumbnails?
The article Revised Standard Version is a featured article. I have taken a beauty shot of the cover of the 2002 anniversary edition I plan to upload. What's the specs on using this image as the main page thumbnail when this article's time comes?

--iHoshie 20:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Best post it on MediaWiki talk:Feature.&mdash;Eloquence 13:04, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Community Portal link in sidebar
There is a discussion and opinion poll at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal over whether a link to the "Community Portal" should be added to the sidebar, and what if anything should be removed to make way for it. Please add your opinions there; thank you - IMSoP 19:44, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yahoo!

 * Archived at Co-operation with Yahoo!

Supreme Court Act 2003
&rarr; Reference desk

Barred IP addresses
-->Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks

Missing Information
I am not a very good writer but I have some reliable/independent sources for a (large) entry. Without that information the entry seems lacking and misleading at some points. Is there a more experienced editor to add the information or should I take my chances?
 * Be bold. But if you really don't dare you can also put the informations you'd like to have inserted on the talk page associated with the article (the "Discuss this page" link), and then hope that someone will spot it there and do the updating. andy 11:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Horizontal dividing lines
Where can I find a Wikipedia guideline for the usage of horizontal dividing lines, like the one above, especially within articles? Thanks! olivier 10:11, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here: Horizontal dividing line use. Cheers! &mdash;Frecklefoot 14:58, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But isn't there anything clearer? I am trying to explain to a user that such lines are not appropriate for dividing sections of an article. The paragraph you are refering to is not very explicit in this respect. I think I remember having read something about this in the Manual of Style but I cannot find it any longer. Any idea? olivier 12:16, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, they are appropriate for dividing sections of an article, but only if the article discusses two distinct items: "A horizontal dividing line is sometimes used as division demarcation for sections which are logically main sections, such as an article that contains two distinct meanings of a term." As an example, see Call Me. The first entry discusses an album called "Call Me." The entry at the bottom discusses a seperate song called "Call Me." Other examples would be Vanity and Avatar. Seperating these distinct items is the only appropriate use for horz dividing lines. Sorry I can't find a page that describes it more clearly, but I'm sure others will back me up on this here. :^) &mdash;Frecklefoot 15:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to bring this up, though it does relate to the horizontal dividing line, but this has really begun to irritate me. At the top of every page on the left hand side is the column of "easy access items" (Main Page, Recent Changes, etc) with three horizontal lines stretching across every page. The problem that exists (at least for me and my computer) is that wherever I go to in Wikipedia I am incapable of clicking on anything to the right of that column of links. This column and the horizontal lines that go with it seem to overlap the tops of every page making it impossible to use the search utility at the top of the page and keeping me from logging into Wikipedia if I am somehow logged out. The situation needs some attention. Katagelophobia 10 Mar 2004

Cleanup doubled again
Cleanup seems to have gotten a complete copy inserted in the middle again, perhaps in an edit conflict.

I will not be fixing it this time (well, i did take out one of the two "Just in" headings, before i remembered what that usually really means) but leaving it to someone with a faster connection.

On the other hand, i'll be working on the witch hunt, since two recent times it was someone who had no idea they'd been involved. Most likely i will communicate with any "witches" directly, rather than postiing anything about it. --Jerzy(t) 01:20, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is with people using the [edit] links. There has been some weirdness with that feature before... Dysprosia 00:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Master Editor
I am right in thinking there are no "master editors" or ownere of articles. It's just that edits are being habitually rolled back at Artificial consciousness and I am not the only one it is happening to. Ataturk 00:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Some people just do that, because they have their own opinions, they think you're wrong, or they're just trying to cause problems. That's why I protected the page. And you're right, there are no "master editors." ugen64 00:25, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, there are Administrators a.k.a. Sysops, who have certain technical abilities that not all contributors have (such as "protecting" pages), but this is not an editorial role, more of a house-keeping one.
 * The ability of anyone to change any article is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia, but, as you have unfortunately discovered, also presents one of its greatest challenges. - IMSoP 01:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for freezing the article, ugen64, and for the other info, IMSoP. I am in the privileged position that the version frozen is one I wrote, although I am not happy with it and more work is required.  So, whereas I have proposed a way forward on the Talk page that seems to have been embraced by the person who keeps on reverting, that person is NOT editing a new version on a sub-page of the Talk page, where I suggested.  Well, that's up to him.  But past performance suggests that the moment the page is unfrozen the article is likely to be reverted either right away or as soon as it is touched by anyone and it will be reverted to a much earlier version.  I suppose the advice is that I regard this as one of Wikipedia's "greatest challenges".  I certainly agree that the alternative, that Wikipedia is policed more thoroughly is likely to have a negative impact overall.  Ataturk 01:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why?
Why do you want to leave? &rarr;Raul654 02:25, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

User:Perl
I am leaving wikipedia unless Jimbo intervenes in the matter involving one of the Wikipedia developers and me. Perl 02:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * try email. --Jiang

Select anniversaries - Rachel Corrie's brutal murder one year ago by Israel
I see on the front page that selected anniversaries for March 16. Why not put that today is the one year anniversary of the brutal murder of the peaceful protestor Rachel Corrie by the Israeli Defense Forces? Rest in peace, Rachel. -- Richardchilton 06:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush Q & A!
What is George Bush's middle name?

George W. Bush Q & A!
What is George Bush's middle name?
 * Walker.

Ships as "she"
I find it mildly offensive to refer to ships as "she" rather than "it." As one example (of many) see USS John S. McCain (DD-928). Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? moink 21:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As an ex-sailor, I find it mildly offensive that this is found mildly offensive. PC overkill, at its worst.


 * The tradition goes way back in history. Other non-living objects are personified, countries are usually &quot;he&quot; or &quot;she&quot; (&quot;Fatherland, Mother Country&quot;). Objects of nature and religion are often assigned gender: Venus (love) is female, Zeus is male, &quot;Mother Nature.&quot; In languages that have gender (most) lots of items are so identiified. I recall when Japan had to decide on how the country name would be transliterated into roman characters on stamps, they had to choose between Nippon (male) or Nihon (female). What is it you find particualrly (if mildly) offensive about referring to ships as &quot;she&quot;? Cecropia 21:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That is Nippon (masculine) or Nihon (feminine): Grammatical gender&ne;Sex. Jor 21:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand the tradition. I'm not objecting to the poetry of much of language... though I am objecting to it being included in the Wikipedia.  That is, it would be fine to call Venus she, but not love.  Germany should not be referred to as he, though "The Fatherland" should be mentioned in the article.  My objection has to do with the association between women and objects, particularly objects used mainly by men.  Sailors have traditionally been all male, but now there are some female sailors as well.  I'm having a hard time explaining myself... I'll try to get back to you when I can think more clearly.  moink 21:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, Germany had a sex change after losing World War II: Die Bundesrepuplik Deutschland is feminine. Mkweise 23:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That's because it is "Die Republik" (feminine), but was "Das Reich" (neuter). Neuter words are often treated as masculine when personified. Jor 23:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * At the time of the ancient mariners even as far back as 500 BC, most were 'married to the sea' due to thier love of the ocean. The ships were their liveihood, their home and their love. As a compliment to the woman they loved they named their sailing vessels after them, telling them that it would remind them of the ones they left behind for the months and sometimes years they have would be gone. This caught on. The 'she' was also given for things of great beauty found in the sea.. ie "Thar she blows!" depicting the massive water spout seen by whaling ships of old which almost all had female names. Even when ships stopped being given feminine names they were still referred to as 'she', but basically this analogy was due to a captain's love for his ship. "Shes a fine ship, Captain" etc... Matt Stan 22:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That's my point exactly. Ships are female in order to be the counterpoint of the male sailors.  I'm not saying that we should excise it from all creative works, or that we should stop sailors from saying it.  But it has no place in an NPOV encyclopedia.


 * No, ships are feminine, period. To force a neuter gender on them is just incorrect. Jor 22:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This is simply standard English, no more, no less. In English, ships are always "she". In Russian, they are always "he". It has nothing whatever to do with hidden gender or sexuality issues, it's just the English language. Tannin 22:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know Russian, but I understand that French and other languages need to assign grammatical gender to objects. But in English we have a quite useful neuter pronoun.  If you refer to things in English by a gendered pronoun, it means they're connected to the sex.  moink 22:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Please do not push a sexist view on a linguistic matter. Neutering ships as you propose is sexism, as by doing so you imply that this is a matter of sex, and not a language tradition or grammatical gender. Jor 22:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * English does not have grammatical gender. We have a neuter pronoun, it, which seems to do quite well for us in other contexts.  moink 22:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * English used to have one. Distorting the language to alleviate perceived sexism which does not exist is political correctness gone overboard. Jor 22:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your point, Moink, but I don't see any denegration implied in the usage. To ban such a long tradition unless there is an observable problem seems to me to be a little politically correct, and I don't think encylopedias should vote on such issues. Having said that, I remember when hurricanes became "he" and "she" instead of just "she." But I understood that because YV weathermen always used to explain that hurricanes were "she" because of "their tempestuous nature." I mean, how silly can you get? For my mind, putting people's names at all on such a horribly destructive force is asinine. They should just call them "Hurricane A", or "Hurricance 1" with the year noted. Or, if you must use names for ease of memory and description, use the phonetic alphabet: "Hurricane Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo," etc. Cecropia 22:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hurricanes are good! At least, cyclones (which is what you call a hurricane if it occurs in this part of the world) are good. If it were not for cyclones, large areas of arid inland Australia would never get any rain worth talking about. Sure, they cause grief and destruction on the coast, but if they move inland they bring life and growth and renewal to vast areas. (Err ... am I off-topic yet?) Tannin 00:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No, encyclopedias should not vote on the issue, either way. We should be NPOV.  But I don't think it's offensive to anyone to refer to ships as it?  Or am I wrong?  moink 22:42, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Calling ships "it" is offensive, as it implies calling ships "she" as English does is sexism, which it is not. Jor 22:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * To follow standard form is NPOV. To make a conscious decision to ban a particular usage is POV. If society changes and calls ships "it", then Wikipedia should follow. I don't Wikipedia should be in the forefront of that kind of thing. If you want to write about a ship, and say "it" I wouldn't stop you. Cecropia 22:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

The Chicago Manual of Style 15th Edition, 8.126, suggests "it" rather than "she". Tradition notwithstanding. -- Nunh-huh 22:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moink said "My objection has to do with the association between women and objects, particularly objects used mainly by men." I disagree. Calling a ship "she" is personifying the ship, not objectifying women. fabiform | talk 23:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * A ship is an it as long as it's just a generic object. When a ship is chistened, however, it becomes a she. The same applies to animals and even babies: an anonymous creature is an it, but naming bestows gender. Mkweise 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely usage determines everything? Take French la lune is feminine, le soleil is masculine. In German it's exactly opposite: der Mond is masculine, die Sonne is feminine. Are we suggesting that we should rewrite grammar because of gender politics? In German it is das Vaterland because in German compound nouns it is always the second of the components which determines the gender of the compound word, as -land is a neuter word as in das Land so the whole becomes a neuter noun. German ships' names, too, as in English usage, take on the feminine, as in die Graf Spee. Usage is everything, therefore to use it for the Titanic would if anything be drawing attention to sexual and gender politics, rather than her tragic story. --Dieter Simon 01:04, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we then call the USS John McCain a he then, instead? :) Dysprosia 03:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion so far. Here's my $.02 (FWIW I'm an extreme nautical illiterate). First, no disresect to our non-English colleagues, but there is no grammatical gender in English. Using the pronoun she with a ship has nothing to do with grammatical agreement. it is simply tradition. Now, whether we want to perpetuate that tradition, that's another matter. Without getting into issues of political correctness, I would suggest the best course would be to follow one of the standard references on usage, such as the Chicago Manual of Style that Nunh-huh cited earlier. Bkonrad | Talk 03:24, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel that this is becoming to PC. If in the English language she has alway been used, keep on using it. I know a ship is inanimate, so an "it" but still. I do not feel that the using of male or female nouns is sexist, that is realy pushing it in my humble opinion. Waerth 13:58, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Dysprosia, the fact that a ship's got a male name, such as USS John McCain, doesn't really matter, as I was saying about the Graf Spee (male name). The Germans would also call her the equivalent of she.
 * As Bkonrad said it is a matter of tradition - or usage in a language. I think if you wanted to change that kind of tradition, you'd a hell of job to convince the person in the street, or the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" as we Brits would say. And try as we may, people would still carry on using the phrases they have always used, so it's not a matter of political correctness, you'd never succeed. I don't really see why a tradition should be changed only because it might favour the female of the species.;-) --Dieter Simon 15:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think this should be treated in the same way as British and Americal English spelling-- do whichever you like, just be consistent within an article and don't change articles just for the sake of it. WRT the Chicago manual, aren't there other style guides that disagree with that? What about older (and newer?) versions of the handbook? Couldn't it be a case of PC itself? Mr. Jones 15:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why I've taken an interest in this, having nil nautical background. But looking around on the web a bit, it seems clear to me that referring to ships as feminine appears to be standard for both the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy. In fact, it looks as though that is an official Royal Navy position. I found no such official pronouncement for the U.S. Navy, but the usage is clearly established throughout the Navy's web site. For other types of vessels, there is more variation. Lloyd's list (apparently THE standard for shipping vessels) decided to start using "it" rather than "she" in 2002 . This article tends to support that change in the context of sailing vessels. Here are a few other interesting tidbits I came across: The Naval Historical Center on why a ship is referred to as she; Naval Glossary entry for "Ship" suggests ships were originally referred to as masculine in English but became feminine by 16th century -- shows traditional usage can change; Linguists discuss this usage. Bkonrad | Talk 17:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bkonrad for doing all that research! It seems the conclusion is that right now this particular part of language is in the midst of change, that during the transition period either pronoun is acceptable, and that few people find either offensive.  I think Mr. Jones might be right about doing the same thing we do with British vs. American spelling.  moink 02:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reference to a ship as "She" is a personification of an object, not an objectification of women. It is one used in reverence, for example as in "Mother-ship" exempifying the nurturing role of a ship to the safety of its crew. It bestows an empowering rather than derogatry idea of feminity to counterblance what was traditionally mascualine world. Like in all things balance is required. ''Would the objection of use of gender have been raised in the first place had ships been traditianlly referred to as "he"? I personally think not.'' :Dainamo march 15, 2004

George W. Bush Q & A!
What is George Bush's middle name?
 * Walker. --anon


 * For future reference, see Reference desk or the appropriate article. &mdash; Sverdrup 13:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Railways E-Mail list Worldwide
Dear Madam or Sir, I'm a conductor from the Swiss Railways and I'm a collector of Railwayshats from all the World. I have over 300 Railwayshats from all the World. Unfortunately I haven't all E-Mail addresses from Railways Companies on the World. Can you send me a list with there? I would be very very happy to have this for continue with my collection. I hope, that you can help me and you write me in the next days back. Thank you very very much for your help, your time and your trouble. Best regards from Switzerland and have a nice time: Marcello Malisan Conductor Swiss Railways


 * Sheesh, can't anyone read? From the top of this page: For specific facts (e.g., Who was the first Pope?), try the Reference desk.

I seem to have lost Cassini-Huygens. Halp!
I seem to have messed something up kinda badly. I'd noticed that someone had moved Cassini-Huygens Mission to Cassini-Huygens using cut-and-paste, which left the article history behind in the process. Since there wasn't anything significant in the history of Cassini-Huygens, I decided to fix that by deleting it and moving Cassini-Huygens Mission there properly. But after I finished, I found that I'd somehow lost the article entirely; each of those articles redirects to the other, and neither of them has the article's history. Can anyone help me fix this? Bryan 01:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The history is there - perhaps you're viewing a cached version of it.&mdash;Eloquence 01:33, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see it again now. Whew! I had a minute of terror there. :) Bryan 01:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Four color theorem
I believe I have proved this theorem incorrect, however I need varification. I created adjacent areas on a plane, and have found that the least amount of colors that can be used is five. I am unsure whether the map must be an actual geographical map, or if it can be theoretical. If you could clairify this for me, i would be most appreciative. Thank you-- Laura


 * Your previous posting of this question has been moved to Talk:Four color theorem. Please also see that article that for reasons why in real-world maps four colors might not be enough due to non-contiguous countries (e.g. Alaska and main USA), but as the theorem is for theoretical maps these aren't counterexamples for the theorem. andy 15:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

quality system decoumentation
i wanna know about ur quality system decoumentation,could u tell me?

Stopping forced capitalization
The Pillows (a Japanese rock band) should actually be "the pillows" -- I've never seen their name capitalized on any official source. It would be easy enough to change this in the text, and I was about to, but first I tried to move the article to "the pillows." However, Wikipedia forced the capitalization of the T: "The pillows." Is there a way to force Wikipedia to keep that T lowercase? Garrett Albright 04:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Nope. There's a page on Wikipedia somewhere that lists the articles that can't have a proper name because of Wikipedia limitations.  Other things like the iMac and the iPod are also incorrect, but so is L'arc~en~Ciel (can't use tildes).  RadicalBender 04:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Take a gander at List of pages whose correct title is not allowed by MediaWiki. --Minesweeper 04:53, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

is it possible to download single web pages as with the "save as ..." command of iexplorer, but having link with relative local addresses instead of the complete path http://en.wikipedia.org/.... ? "2004 march 12 - mauri"

Wu Dynasty
Dear Sir/Madam

I was wanting to know the Family Crest of this dynasty? Or if not the symbole of this dynasty! Thanks

Wu Chong Chiu

--> Moved to the Reference desk

Wikipedia - L mailing list
I subscribed to the Wikipedia-L mailing list, but I don't recieve anything. I have tried a few times but its always the same case - no mail. Has anyone else had this problem - a bug in the software maybe? - Ludraman 16:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Mabye your email server thinks that it is spam? Perl 19:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yup. Hotmail put it in the junk-mail folder (which I rarely check, to be honest). Thanks. Ludraman | Talk 07:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Including Talk link in signature
How do I include my talk page in my signature, since ~ doesn't seem to do it? Elf 17:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Try changing your preferences to add it to your signature: "Elf (Talk) " - Texture 17:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Or you can do it this way. In preferences, under nickname, write  Elf]] | Talk . [[User:Francs2000|Graham  :) | Talk 18:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Undo a move
Can someone undo a move please? I attempted to move Lacinka alphabet to & but this caused it to end up at some weird location. Jor 17:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, it's back to Lacinka, with the other one being a redirect. If you want, I can delete the redirect too. Dori | Talk 17:18, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. Redirect should probably stay, as the barred-l is the correct spelling. Jor 17:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A MediaWiki table of contents?
Is there a list of all of the messages somewhere? RickK 16:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Took me a while to find it, too. It's listed on the Community main page as Custom Messages. Elf 16:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup. MediaWiki namespace has links to four different indexes, you probably want the third or fourth: list of boilerplate messages  or list of navigational elements.  fabiform | talk 16:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Viewing the images already uploaded to Wikipedia?
What is the easiest way to view the images available for use in articles? - Bevo 22:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Click on Image List in the sidebar. Jor 22:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You can get to that link by clicking on "upload file" or "Special pages". I wish all the images were organised into categories for browsing... you can't imagine how long it took me to find good pictures of people in hats with the current system.  (Not that "people with hats" would be a very likely category of course)  :)  fabiform | talk 23:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Such a project (organizing Wikipedia's images by category) would be worth undertaking, I think. I would like to volunteer to help in this project, if anyone were to start it. One problem, though, is that the list doesn't seem to show ALL images... just up to the last 500... Garrett Albright 00:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually if you could do a search on the Image List page based on the image description pages (which I spent a good hour trying to figure out how to do in *any* search mode--including tweaking my pref's--the other day and gave up), that would avoid having to manually sort and group them. Elf | Talk 00:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you can search the image namespace if you set this as an option in full text searching, but this is turned off at the moment anyway. And this wouldn't serve the same purpose as categorising images.  Imagine you want to see what images of women we have uploaded, there's no appropriate keyword to search for (unless I've misunderstood and you're proposing to add keywords to the image description pages?).  fabiform | talk 03:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Now you're talking a project! ;-) ....Nah, I was just thinking that if the photo were described as "woman in a hat", it would show up under both categories.  Of course, now, thinking about it, I don't think I used the word "dog" to describe any of the dog photos that I uploaded--hmmm--   Elf | Talk 03:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * However, that does bring to mind this public domain community-indexed photo site--click on 32 Random Unindexed Images and go to work.  If we had a tool like that for our images...  Elf | Talk 03:57, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You could conceivably search the images using Google. A search string such as "image dog site:en.wikipedia.org" doesn't directly bring me to any picture pages with dogs (Google isn't indexing those?), but it does return articles that link to them... so it's not a flawless solution.


 * But personally, I think it would be really nice if there was some image catalog of some sort... You'd click on Animals, then Mammals, then Dogs, and you're presented with a list of pictures of dogs. Or, if you wanted pictures of Mars, you'd click Science: Astronomy: The Solar System: Mars or something like that... just like how the normal articles are now, more or less. (Image Catalog/Science/Astronomy/The Solar System/Mars?)


 * By the way, thanks for that image archive link, Elf. That is cool. Garrett Albright 09:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually found it on Wikipedia Public_domain_image_resources. (And you thought I was just clever.) Elf | Talk 00:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * In principle it might be possible to automate the cataloguing by working backwards, starting from the pages on which the images appear and listing them under the sections these pages fall into in the "browse by subject" index. Washington Irving | Talk 09:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It just occurred to me that this would be really great if images were shared between languages/wikimedia projects: there could be a central image library that was categorised and browsable as a public resource, and which also served as the clearinghouse for images used in articles. (see also Wikimagery) - IMSoP 01:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Status of Freedom of Information Act and other photos and materials
What is the copyright status of material obtained under the Freedom of Information Act? I am thinking in particular of the photos and documents on TheSmokingGun.com can be used on Wikipedia. Thanks! Mark Richards 23:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * IANAL, but have experience in intellectual property matters. I would say that Freedom of Information Acr has nothing to do with copyright status. If the photos were public domain before the request, they are still public domain. If they had valid copyright, then they are still. It's like if you buy a book with pictures, you can read the book, cut out the pictures and put them in a file, loan or sell the original book to someone else, but you can't legally copy any part of the book and especially not reproduce it for others, money or not.


 * OTOH, there is the question of fair use, which is not a bright line. See the wikipedia article, Fair use. Cecropia 23:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * These are basically mug-shots taken by police officers - are they public property? Mark Richards 00:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you know when the photos were taken? Cecropia 01:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I looked at the photos you're talking about. How do you know they were released under FOIA? Maybe it's obvious, but I don't see that on the page? Cecropia 02:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's a tough question because copyright law has changed a lot in recent years. Now, for example, anything you create (including what I'm writing right now except that I've released it under GFDL) is automatically copyrighted to the creator, notice or no notice, unless those rights have explicitly been assigned to a natural or corporate someone else. I don't know how this applies to mugshots. I assume that as government employees the policeman are operating under local law under which they lose the rights to photos taken in the line of duty by virtue of having accepted appointment as policemen. Note I said "assume". So now the photos have been released under FOIA (we think). I don't know under what terms the police departments gave up the photos. Did they explicitly give smoking gun the rights to publish them? Did they convey any property rights to smoking gun, like "you can use them, but can't convey them to anyone else, they have to come back to us"?


 * So we kind of come to fair use. Like I said, this is not a bright line. I'd say you have a good case for fair use as these are public figures, and if they are to be used to illustrate a scholarly work in which they supplment significant explanatory text and, of course, you're not making money from them. Note that not making money is not an excuse for infringement but it might bolster the "scholarly use."


 * So that's my non-legally-binding explanation. As you've said. "You're results may vary." Some IP attorney might come along and say I'm dead on or I'm way off, but I think it's a good outline. Cecropia 02:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! There is a comment on the home section of the site that says the images were obtained by filing FIA requests, but nothing else that confirms it for each image. One the basis of what's been said, I am not going to post any of them. Thanks, Mark Richards 04:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Master Editor
I am right in thinking there are no "master editors" or owners of articles. It's just that edits are being habitually rolled back at Artificial consciousness and I am not the only one it is happening to. Ataturk 00:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Some people just do that, because they have their own opinions, they think you're wrong, or they're just trying to cause problems. That's why I protected the page. And you're right, there are no "master editors." ugen64 00:25, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, there are Administrators a.k.a. Sysops, who have certain technical abilities that not all contributors have (such as "protecting" pages), but this is not an editorial role, more of a house-keeping one.
 * The ability of anyone to change any article is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia, but, as you have unfortunately discovered, also presents one of its greatest challenges. - IMSoP 01:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for freezing the article, ugen64, and for the other info, IMSoP. I am in the privileged position that the version frozen is one I wrote, although I am not happy with it and more work is required.  So, whereas I have proposed a way forward on the Talk page that seems to have been embraced by the person who keeps on reverting, that person is NOT editing a new version on a sub-page of the Talk page, where I suggested.  Well, that's up to him.  But past performance suggests that the moment the page is unfrozen the article is likely to be reverted either right away or as soon as it is touched by anyone and it will be reverted to a much earlier version.  I suppose the advice is that I regard this as one of Wikipedia's "greatest challenges".  I certainly agree that the alternative, that Wikipedia is policed more thoroughly is likely to have a negative impact overall.  Ataturk 01:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Something which is perhaps a little unusual has occurred. One editor of Artificial consciousness has refused to work on a new consensus version of the article on a sub-page of the Talk page. He refuses to contribute in any other way. But he says he is unhappy. The new version of the article is patently an improvement and represents even the recalcitrant editor's POV, I think. A new article Consciousness (artificial) has been created as a copy of the proposed one. The recalcitrant editor has said he will not edit that either. I suggest an experiment be allowed. Unprotect Artificial consciousness and allow it and Consciousness (artificial) to co-exist for a while. The latter really is an improvement and must not be lost, but the former is at a disadvantage as it is frozen. I think it will defuse the edit war and the best article will be the one that survives. I know this is a little unusual but I ask that NEITHER article be deleted, for the timee being. Ataturk 02:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous users should not be permitted to ask questions
This page (already way past its 32kB limit) is flooded with too many random IPs asking questions that seem not to be grounded with the aim to write and improve WP encyclopedia articles. We should state up at the top that if you are not registered, any reference desk question asked here will not be moved to the reference desk but deleted. --Jiang 00:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Better clarify the intro instead.&mdash;Eloquence


 * Boilerplate text at the top of articles is there solely to benefit mouse scroll wheel manufacturers, not to be read by anyone. The proposal would only have the effect of alienating potential new users. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous users should not be blamed for asking questions on the pump. Lets try to see how an anon comes here. Jay 17:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) He goes to the Main page, sees Help at the right corner
 * 2) The most eye-catching entry in the TOC at Help is "Getting in touch".
 * 3) In that section, the first is "Contact us" and the second is "Village Pump, a forum to ask questions not answered here or in the FAQs". Obviously the 2nd seems better than the first because it appears more interactive, rather than send a mail and wait for ages. They try out Village Pump and see that questions are being answered in large numbers.
 * 4) The 3rd option in the TOC "Reference desk, request an article or information. See also Requested articles." doesn't appeal much as it has something to do with articles. (an article ?? whats that ?)

I strongly disagree with Jiang. If a question on this page is annoying you, just move it to the reference desk. Over there we tend to be very sweet to the questioners, performing google searches for them, asking for clarifications of incoherent questions, etc. User:Jwrosenzweig even gave advice to someone looking to clear her home of canine ghosts. I don't personally e-mail people who wish e-mail answers, but others do. Remember that we have to put a good public face on Wikipedia, that we want good press both for our usage and for our contributions grow. Rudeness (not aimed at you Jiang, but others have been rude) doesn't help anyone, and we can't assume that all of our readers are as computer-savvy as the average Wikipedian. moink 18:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just dont see the benefits of answering questions. If answering questions is going to get people to contribute then you have a valid point. If it provides no benefit, then what's the point? Maybe we should send out boiler plate text asking anyone who asks questions to contribute. The cost is that VP is clogged when it cannot afford it. --Jiang


 * Perhaps then you can explain more for us about the village pump budget and what it can afford. I would also be interested to know what benifit I must realize before it is worthwhile for me to answer somebody's question. DontMessWithThis 04:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The page is 70kb and some browsers have problems loading pages over 32kb. That's why a big bold message shows up when one clicks on "Edit this page".--Jiang 05:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As long as this page is the village pump, anyone should be allowed to ask whatever (s)he wants, and anyone should be allowed to answer (and, obviously, not to answer). This is not the information desk but the village pump, there's a great difference. OK, this page may need tidying up more frequently, but not by silencing people. Pfortuny 11:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This village pump stopped taking reference questions a long time ago. That's why we have a reference desk. Dont penalize those with slow modems are those who don't want to scroll. Again, what is the benefit? Do things only if there's a perceived benefit. These anons come and ask quesitions and they never come back. Isn't answering them a waste of time? We don't know if they ever find their questions answered or if theyre just trolling. --Jiang


 * I think more people check their answers than tell us that they are doing so. Maybe we should add to the header on the reference desk (to which all of this type of question should be moved) that we would like people to acknowledge when they see their answers, thus letting us delete the question earlier and keep track of how many people check.  Also, many people who leave e-mails get responses as well.  As far as trolling, very few questions I've seen fit into any definition of troll that I've come across.  The benefits to Wikipedia are more potential readers and contributors, a better reputation, and improvements to articles when we learn that something is missing.  The benefits to some individual Wikipedians (like me, this is why I hang out at the ref desk) is that we feel that some of our research directly benefits people.  The benefit to humanity is more knowledge shared by more people.  If we want to talk about moving the ref desk questions off the pump more quickly, or doing other things to improve pump readability and editability, that's fine, but I don't think the solution is ignoring members of the public or being rude to them.  moink 23:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is true that this page is long enough to be obnoxious. Could we subdivide it by category? pstudier 23:23, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

Question about all blacks who have played against Australia
Hi there,

I am trying to find out who has played the most number of games for the All Blacks in Bledisloe Cup matches. Could someone help me please.

reply east@clear.net.nz


 * We don't reply to email addresses and the page you're looking for is Reference desk. --Jiang


 * No offence, but since when was that true? The usual procedure seems to be to move the question to the ref. desk, and if an answerer wants to copy their answer to the e-mail address, they do so (and say that they have done so). Beware of saying "we" unless there is a specific agreed policy, which in this case I know not of. - IMSoP 12:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, Jiang, if you don't want to do this, that's fine, but please don't be mean to the newbies, let someone handl them who wants to. -- Jmabel 19:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Photograph of animal abuse
While responding to demands posted on my user page, I found a photograph of a cat that had been forced into a beer glass, photographed and placed as a lead image on a user's page. The image is uploaded to Wikipedia as image:Cat_in_pint.jpg.

I immediately forwarded the image to a mainstream animal protection advocacy group, but I want to advise readers here about this photograph of animal abuse.

Besides being painful to the animal while being placed in the glass and while confined to the glass, the stunt risks breaking the glass and injuring the cat. The animal might also be injured or have been injured by the act of forcing it into the glass. Publishing the photograph invites others to commit similar acts of animal abuse. Bird 18:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Those images are of course hoaxes. Please see  Morwen 18:59, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * For the past five years, the ASPCA has taken complaints and aired complaints about the so-called hoax photographs inspired by bonsaikitten.com . Whether the photographs are in fact hoaxes (they are often hoaxed hoaxes of actual animal abuse), the image promotes animal abuse. In the context it was placed on a user page at Wikipedia, the image had no information indicating it was a hoax, or suggesting that such behavior toward animals is unacceptable. Bird 19:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

'I reviewed the web site you directed me toward. The site directed toward another site titled cruel.com for more information. The site did not say the images are hoaxes; the site said the practice of raising tube-fed kittens in such environments is a hoax. Actual images of cats confined to glass containers are used to perpetuate the hoax of bonsaikittens. Bird 19:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Notice that bonsaikitten.com was investigated by the FBI three years ago and (apparently) nothing came of it. Peta admits it is a joke and says "if the site is not in violation of the host's user agreement, no law is being violated, and the site can remain up". This is very old news spouted by a recently unbanned troll who is looking to cause trouble. &rarr;Raul654 19:39, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Bonsaikitten is a joke, nothing more.
 * I think we've established that. The thing is, the joke encourages animal abuse. Also, the website doesn't mention itself being a hoax. Ludraman | Talk 19:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The joke encourages animal abuse? While certainly twisted humour, I don't think you can say that. Or do you believe pictures of gun shot victims encourage shooting people? &#8212; Jor (Darkelf) 19:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As I said on my talk page (where Bird first tried to start trouble) - it is not my/our responsibility if that picture inspires an idiot somewhere to do something illegal/immoral. To an idiot, even a lowly fork can be dangerous, but that doesn't stop the rest of us from using them. &rarr;Raul654 19:57, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Raul's use of the term idiot to describe a theoretical confused 10-year-old in a disturbed household demonstrates a gross callous and a lack of training in basic human relations.


 * This notice is not about Bonsaikitten. This notice is about an image posted on Wikipedia of an actual cat confined in an actual glass. If that does not comprise abuse in your mind, my concern for the dignity and safe treatment of animals is lost on you. That the FBI was asked to investigate a site bearing similar pictures is telling. Though there were no criminal charges filed, the ethics of participating in this sort of behavior are apparent to most people who realize that children emmulate behavior they see elsewhere. PETAs inability to force the web site off the Internet does not comment on whehter PETA approved of the images.


 * If you see no problem with encouraging children to force animals into confining glass containers, I can hardly find any basis for respecting any contribution you might make to a public informational document. Further, we have preserved these images for the unlikely eventulity that those advocating this sort of morbid art run for public office.


 * Comparison with images of gunshot victims is a strawman argument. Images of gunshot victims are seldom published solely for the prurient entertainment of viewers, they are most often depicted in the context of a movie. If no body sees a problem with posting images of gunshot victims, I have a public domain photograph of the violent war-related deaths that I can post on my user page.Bird 20:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of this image?&mdash;Eloquence 20:50, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unknown. It's one of those pictures that is everywhere on the internet. I've seen it on at least two other sites (adorablebunnies was one, can't remember the other). &rarr;Raul654 20:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * In this case we cannot use it. User pages are subject to the FDL like all others, and fair use is not applicable (no educational value). Please remove the image.&mdash;Eloquence 20:59, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have listed the image on Possible copyright infringements and have removed it from my user page pending that decision. &rarr;Raul654 21:26, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention to this matter, Eloquence. A major plank in my platform in Wikipedia politics is that editors should make ethical and informed decisions regardless the reputation of the persons involved in an editorial matter.

I received an immediate reply from the ASPCA, which recounted a long history of confronting these sophomoric images. These are obviously individuals who are just looking for attention, the ASPCA wrote. I posted the body of their initial boilerplate reply at: User:Bird/animal_cruelty_replies. (anon)

I put my goldfish in a small glass container. What a cruel scrounge am I! Garrett Albright 00:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why is anyone paying attention to anything this person is saying, and why is he still being allowed to post after a massive vandalism attack that required the constant reversion of multitudes of articles over an entire evening? This person made a massive attack with several revolving IP addresses, deleting this page and many other pages over and over again. User:Bird should be banned for all possible posting. RickK | Talk 02:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I reviewed your user page RickK, and noticed you posted the comments below, questioning your worth in the context of this project. I wonder if your poor opinion of the worth of other people is related to your doubts about your own value. Bird 04:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Since I'm apparently a small minority in feeling that we should write full sentences and make meaningful articles, don't expect me to do any more editing of other people's articles. I'll stick to my own, and let the rest of the encyclopedia look like garbage.


 * There has been recent discussion on the mailing list that what I contribute to Wikipedia is worthless. Others don't seem to have the same feeling, but if it's true, would you please let me know on my Talk page, so that I can finally figure out that I'm not wanted around here?

Are you going to address your vandalism, even apologize for it and vow not to do it again? RickK | Talk 04:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For me to second guess my actions would be to demean the value of our relationship, Rick. And I believe a general concensus arose among most who wrote on the topic that I should not revisit or radically change my contributions. I share your opinion that valuable contributions are underappreciated while inferior content is often encouraged. I have shared elsewhere my conviction that this username's recent performance is more responsive to desires of the readership than this writer's earlier more substantive contributions of content. Bird 04:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: New pages patrol
After noticing how many new pages we're getting now, and how many of them do need a little help along the way, I'd like to propose New pages patrol as an entirely voluntary and low-obligation way of keeping up with Special:Newpages and the flood of new stub articles. As a community, we have a vested interest in watching new pages as they come in and gently offering advice and support to new contributors in order to keep the quality of our article database high. If people think that this is a good idea, I think it'd be ideal to link to this from a header in Special:Newpages much like we do on Special:Recentchanges. -- Seth Ilys 22:55, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * All we really have to pay attention to is that newly created articles are not immediately put up for deletion. See Wikipedia talk:List of encyclopedia topics (17 March 2004), where I have tried to point this out in some detail.  23:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There's also a tremendous number of new articles which are very poorly written (for instance, incomplete sentences, no wiki markup, no wikilinks, etc.) Especially with a link from the search page, a larger proportion of new articles are orphans or improperly titled. If nobody's watching Special:Newpages and helping these pages along as they come in, they can sit around for days or even weeks before anything meaningful happens to them. I proposed the new pages patrol as a way of helping keep the quality of our articles high. Folks are much more likely to contribute and add to an article that's properly formatted than one which is badly formatted. That's my interest in proposing this, because I know that there are other like-minded folks out there. -- Seth Ilys 23:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. By helping make sure that new articles are improved and worked by veteran Wikipedians soon after their creation, it would seem to me that this article would actually lead to fewer VfD nominations. Most articles can be improved and made meaningful, if there's incentive and support for doing so. This is a way of doing just that. -- Seth Ilys


 * I already mentioned this on IRC, but I'll repeat it here for completeness. I think this idea is going to turn out detrimental. Currently, I think a lot of people watch Special:Newpages because they have a feeling of worry, i.e. they are worrying that rubbish articles may go through unnoticed. I think if this patrol system is going to be introduced, this worry will partly go away. People will start thinking they no longer need to watch it because other people are already organising it. Of course, this is a theory, which it probably wouldn't hurt to verify by experiment. &amp;mdash; Timwi 23:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The current problem is that much of the time Special:Newpages is not being watched, and great deal of rubbish slips through and sits around for weeks. Part of the aim of this proposal is to ensure comprehensive, around-the-clock watching of new pages -- the proposal is intended to help solve the problem (a problem which already exists) that you suggest it might create. -- Seth Ilys 00:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I dunno about anyone else, but when I'm trolling (in a positive sense) for articles to clean up brainlessly before calling it a night, I always go to Newpages.  And it seems that half the time that I pick an article to check, someone else has already been in and wikied and formatted it.  I think I might be deterred if I thought that that proportion was going to be higher because there were people assigning themselves to new-page partrol--just wastes my time to click links that someone else has already managed.  Just my initial reaction. Elf | Talk 02:09, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * But with the new pages patrol, you'd be able to find the pages that are least likely to have been looked over, and focus your efforts on those; it'd make you more productive, not less. -- Seth Ilys 02:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe the new pages partol would be more effective if it were possible to have a way to mark the article as "already wikified". Then those still in bad state will show up better. However then we'd have the problem whom we allow to mark an article as such. If the one posting the nonsense sets the flag as well it will slip through much easier (similar like the worry Timwi issued before). And maybe the biggest problem - we'd need a mediawiki developer implement this feature. andy 09:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Accidental IP block
Oops! My IP address seems to have been accidentally blocked. I think I may have fiddled with something I shouldn't, but I'm not a vandal or an open proxy or anything, honest! The IP in question is 195.137.85.50, so if someone could unblock it for me, I'd be much obliged. [how embarrassing...]

pls answer the question
what is the most advance among the gymnosperms

VfD is messed up at the moment
Votes for deletion is messed up -- see the note at the top -- maybe someone can protect it and sort it out. Just a thought. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How to delete account?
I just registered for an account but then I after a bit of thought I realize I would rather post stuff anonymously. How do I go about deleting my account?

I also looked over the FAQ/help pages and can't find any info about account deletion. Perhaps somebody could write a blurb about it?

Thanks.


 * There is no way to delete an account (save for some developer doing it manually). Why would you want to delete it though? All you have to do is not use it anymore. If you had user pages those could be deleted, but you don't appear to have created any. Dori | Talk 07:29, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure. Sometimes I just like to be thorough.  Is it not possible to remove all traces of the account Comrade-HW? --Comrade-HW 07:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You've made contributions, and those contributions have to be attributed to somebody or something, in the history. If you want to dissociate your Wikipedia contributions from a more general online identity, I suggest you request a name change to a different pseudonym. -- Tim Starling 08:19, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Very well then. I guess I'll just abandon my account.  Thank you for your time.  However, I will be deleting this correspondence.  --Comrade-HW 08:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VfD change
See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. silsor 19:00, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

VfD change
See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. silsor 19:00, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

There was an entry about Jesselyn Radack, but it vanished. I restored it but the deletion does not show up in the history. Nor does it appear in the deletion log as far as I can see. With google it still cannot be found. How can I find out who deleted it?

If nobody has any objection I'm going to remove the vfd notice from all the lists that User: 141 had nominated for deletion, because he was trolling and nobody wants these things deleted. Mintguy (T) 20:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Delete my articles"
User:Yaohua2000 at Chinese WP got pissed off after people objected to his user page (like this), so he requested about 9 pages started by him and afterwards exclusively edited by him to be deleted. Should we fufill that request? One admin already did. My understanding is that giving to WP is a one-way no-return charity street, but I'm not sure the legality behind it. So I asked on WP IRC, but only Adam replied, saying "I believe that is the gist of the message at the bottom of the editing page".

This couldn't have been the first incident like this? The request sounds logical, but is it compliant to the GNU Wiki "save page" click? I'd surprised if requests of this type doesn't spring up again, and again. Perhaps we should develop a meta or WP namespace page, clear and loud, just for newbies on this topic. --Menchi 04:57, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re; Please Help
If you could please help me find the answer to a chem honors question I have to answer. What is the chemical composition of a personal desktop computer? and What is the chemical composition of te white powdered compond that is the phosphor on the inside of fluorescent lamps? Any help with these questions would be great. My e-mail address is keywee4@aol.com Thanks phil

Protect George W. Bush?
There's been some discussion on protecting George W. Bush until the U.S. presidential election is over, based on a recent spate of vandalism. We decided to hold a poll here so as to give this decision wider exposure in the community. The options we've thought of are thus:


 * No protection--status quo.
 * 1) Support. Meelar
 * Protect, except for a set period-- "lock every day but Thursdays"
 * 1) Oppose. Meelar
 * Protect--changes can be proposed on talk page
 * 1) Oppose.Meelar
 * Look into having someone write code to prevent massive swings in the article's size.
 * 1) Support.Meelar 00:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Look into having someone write code to prevent anonymous users from editing the article.
 * 1) Oppose.Meelar

Feel free to add other suggestions. Every person can either support or oppose each option. I've voted; follow this format.

TO FIND OUT THE EXACT TIME OF BIRTH ON DEC. 11, 1943 FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, JOHN FPRBES KERRY,
Dear Sir,

My name is Richard Tan and I am a staunch supporter for the next US presidential Candidate for the coming US election to be held on Nov. 2, 2004.

The reason for me to request for such unusual question is I need the exact time to cast an accurate prediction on him and to offer some good advice using Chinese metaphysic, called the 4 Pillars of Destiny.

I am going to contribute in the form of article writting to certain feng shui magazines and website to attract more people to going to Kerry' s presidental campaign website.

Hope you can assist me in order to come up with an accurate and practical advice. Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours Sincerely

Richard Tan