Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 1

Sorry, newb question
Okay, I was just browsing random articles and I came across one titled "Hattie Gosset", which was fine except for the style in which it was written. How do you flag an article for cleanup/editing if I don't want to do it myself? thanks Missmissy 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Use cleanup for general cleanup, or use any one of over a hundred more specific cleanup templates that can be found at Category:Cleanup templates. Also, a note explaining your concerns on the article talk page would be helpful as well.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please mention your concerns on the talk page. Without those, it's pretty much impossible to take care of the issues you want to point out. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to date the tag.  Adrian  M. H.  09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has already been deleted for having no real content. --207.176.159.90 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The original questioner was talking about the style in which the article was written. How come I can't find any content in the page's history? I'm smelling some obscure content removal/move here... - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is Hattie Gossett (with two 't's in each word).- gadfium 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Compare edit time
I am wondering what tool allows a person to compare edit times/edit histories, like this: User:MONGO/Ban_evasion Travb (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was such a "judicial" or "law enforcement" aspect to WP. I guess it is needed sometimes. Steve Dufour 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any edit counter can pick out this information. While most counters list edit totals by namespace, e.g. article, template, etc, they can just as easily divide the counted edits by time of edit.  One of the counters run by Interiot showed daily and weekly graphs of activity but he received some criticism on privacy grounds as it is pretty easy to tell what time zone someone is in by glancing at the graph, assuming that there is a spike in editing in the user's evening.  Those graph functions have not worked in a while and Interiot does not seem to be with us any longer, so I am not sure if there is a public method of getting edit graphs any longer. - BanyanTree 11:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this setup so the author needed to authorize inclusion of those graphs. Frankly, I don't care about them much. Even if someone knows what time zone I'm in, they're really smart if they can find me based on that info. - Mgm|(talk) 13:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interiot's counter? Yeah.  First, everyone had graphs.  After complaints, he added an opt-out option.  After more complaints, he made it opt-in.  You're making his defense exactly: the graphs use information that is directly from the contributions record that is public for every account and anyone who spends five minutes going through a portion of another user's contribs, and making note of the times of the edits, can make some pretty good guesses.  Regardless of the logic of this argument, people were annoyed.  - BanyanTree 13:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright dispute, comments appriciated

 * Please move this if it is more appropriote elsewhere.

I am currently engaged in a dispute with over. I created and uploaded the aforementioned image, and nominated the copyrighted image, which he had uploaded, for deletion. He has since then accused me, on my user talk page, on his talk page, at WP:IFD, WP:CV, and on Commons, of plagarising this file. I have tried to explain to him that the images are only similar in that they are pictures of the same thing, but he won't listen, and just comes back with another comment about how I have "stolen" this image. I would appreciate some comments from other users to shed more light on the problem. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think (and hope) that the dispute has been resolved. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Intermediate centralized discussion
I have run into a problem, new to me but one which must have come up before. The twelve (western) Astrological sign articles seem to have what I would consider an excess of unsourced and pov material related to the specific forecasts of these signs (down to relationship compatibility etc.). Since this is a problem that impacts all twelve pages, it seems like some kind of centralized discussion would be warranted. However I have never seen a process for this (other than for policy, and a specific policy to address this seems like instruction creep). I started a discussion on Talk:Aries (astrology), but got no takers. Any thoughts of how to proceed? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps WikiProject Astrology?


 * And you can always start removing material, per WP:BB, citing WP:NPOV, and see what happens. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into it. --TeaDrinker 05:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead, per John Broughton's suggestion, and removed it. I added a notice template to each of the twelve pages.  It would be nice to develop a formal method for creating these centralized discussions.  Thanks again for all the suggestions.  --TeaDrinker 03:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

South Park
Does anyone else think that the TV show South Park is mentioned a little too much on WP? It seems like every serious social topic that has a pop culture references section includes something from it. Steve Dufour 04:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are a few of the articles in which South Park is mentioned in the "Cultural References" section: Osama bin Laden, Yoko Ono, North American Aerospace Defense Command, Special Olympics, and The Last Supper (Leonardo). Steve Dufour 17:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think references to south park is not a problem. Travb (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good, 'cuz there sure are a lot of them. :-) Steve Dufour 02:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of them seem to be in "Cultural References" sections (which are, in most cases, a fancy name for "Trivia"). Unfortunately, there is no community consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of such sections.  Some people love trivia sections... others (myself included) hate them with a passion and don't think they have any place in an encyclopedia.  Given the past debates about trivia sections, they are not going away anytime soon.  So all we can do is tag them with  tags. Blueboar 13:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Once in a while a South Park reference seems to be notable, like their show making fun of Tom Cruise and Scientology which attracted a lot of attention. But mostly they are in the business of parodying everything under the sun, so every instance of them doing it shouldn't be notable.  The same thing a political cartoonist in a newspaper.  Should every politician and issue featured have that mentioned on WP? Steve Dufour 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, judgment is required when deciding whether a pop-culture reference should be included in an article - just the way judgement is required when deciding whether anything should be included in an article. Sometimes it is; often it isn't. People who slap down the "trivia" tag and delete all such categories without exception are just as bad as people who fill WP with endless references to the Simpsons (even worse than South Park). - DavidWBrooks 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not disagree with you. :-) Steve Dufour 16:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All cultural reference/trivia sections need to be deleted anyways. 138.9.11.124 00:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case the notable information they sometimes contain should be put somewhere else in the article. Steve Dufour 03:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW I removed the South Park references, and other trivia, from the Last Supper and the Special Olympics. Steve Dufour 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User levels?
Hi, I was just wondering if there was different kinds of users, like Admins or normal users, etc. in Wikipedia. - /dev/null 12:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are. User access levels provides an overview, of the different types of users, including Administrators and Bureaucrats.  Harryboyles  13:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you are talking about. For editing articles the answer is "no"... all editors are simply editors, and the only differentiation is your writing skill and the respect you gain by making good edits.  If however you are talking about behind the scenes stuff, like who can protect a page or block a disruptive editor, then "yes"... there are Admins and Bureaucrats and what not, that have access to certain tools the rest of us don't have access to. Blueboar 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image used by Slate Magazine
(I don't know if this is the right place to post this)

Image:UskBridge image1.JPG is used in The Joy of Footbridges. I doubt that the requirements of GFDL or CC-BY-SA were fulfilled here. I left a note on the uploaders' page. Just thought somebody should know...--Padraic 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At least they're giving us a credit! Not quite as good as a linkback but it's a start. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LINGUITICS
Hello. . . I am having a terrible time finding out how to pronounce "nevluk", a native Alaskan word/description for snow. Could someone please help and send any helpful e-mail to crseyednmt@aol.com?? I would really appreciate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.130.8 (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you tried a Google search? --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Undo review
Is the Undo option a good thing? Admins are severely chastised for misusing the rollback tool and some people see it as so much of an abhorrence that admin status has been called into question. Everyone has access to the Undo feature and I'm starting to find that people are misusing that more frequently than ever before. Because it is so easy to reverse another editor's change using undo I think people are undoing more than ever before and edit wars are more likely. An example would be here, where a simple wording clarification was undone. At least with that one the undoer gave an edit summary - many don't.

Is it a problem? I doubt there is an acceptable solution but I was wondering if others believe that Undo encourages edits that otherwise would not have taken place. violet/riga (t) 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not perfect, but I think that vandalism fighting could become hell without it. Furthermore, many tools (such as Twinkle) enable regular users to rollback. In my opinion, the undo button is a key resource in fighting vandalism. User: (talk • contribs • email) 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Argentinian Election
Could someone work on Argentine general election, 2007. It bothers me that the Red Sox are on the "In the news" section of the Main Page, but not the elections in Argentina. I would love to work on it but I have an exam tomorrow. There should be plenty of sources in the media.--cloviz 04:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos!!
I just wanted to say thanks to all of you people who've been working hard to make Wikipedia work. I've never edited or written any articles and until recently I didn't use the site all that much. But somehow in the last two or three months it seems that just about everytime I google something, up pops a Wikipedia article as the first or second link- and the content is generally excellent. I don't know if anything changed on Wikipedia or with Google's algorithyms, but it seems to me (as an outsider to the Wikipedia community) that a tipping point is approaching. I envision a time very soon where instead of googling everything, many many people like me will be heading straight to Wikipedia instead of Google when we want to search the internet. Or more precisely, we'll probably use Google to search for the closest Chinese restaurant and Wikipedia to learn who won the Peloponnesian war (though we might still need to use Google to figure out how to spell Peloponnesian). Anyhow... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.204.21 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PLOS
Yay! The Public Library of Science is online! Gwen Gale 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Thank you. It's a beautiful thing, for certain. Once and Forever 17:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed @ developing Wikiparty
Wikiparty is a community aiming to find new ways to do politics. It´s based on the idea of open politics.

Its time to look at the possibilities of developing democracies beyond elections and campaigns.

Lets put together a Wikiparty. A party that creates its political opinions and suggestions in the same way that wikipedia forms its articles.

Lets try to think ways to systematically create political force.

This way we could challenge the traditional parties to open up their modus operandi and let their supporters to become their participants.

A virtual community that aims to a real life political chance, could reach over national borders and grasp problems caused by for example globalization or climate change.

We need your help to develop this movement. Create a wiki in your own language or help to develop the international wiki.

More information from the publicist.

Olli Sirén [advertisement redacted] &mdash; Lomn 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia article on open politics: Open politics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.26.174 (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you
Get the wiki news thing to go on the right side of the main page? Elassint 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Templates and HTML coding. Click edit, or view source on the main page to see how it was done in detail. - Mgm|(talk) 12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's video
Am I the only one who doesn't think that Jimbo's video is entirely OK? I don't remember anyone asking me whether there should be a link to it on every single page of Wikipedia (or asking any one of us, for that matter). If there had been such a previous discussion, I would have raised objections to the idea. First of all, literally millions of people who have never heard of Jimbo will watch the video, which will increase his popularity, as the video doesn't have any criticism of Jimbo and portraits him as a nice guy. They'll watch the video because they saw it on Wikipedia, and they saw it on Wikipedia because they visited Wikipedia, and they visited Wikipedia because it's a great website, and it's a great website because thousands of voluntary contributors made it a great website. But those contributors didn't make a great website in order for Jimbo's popularity to increase - I know that's not my main concern when I edit an article. The video is also used to advance Jimbo's assertion that he's the sole founder of Wikipedia. When he introduces himself to the man in South Africa, he doesn't mention that whether he is the sole founder or not is a controversial matter. Due to the video and the increase in popularity, he will be interviewed more often, people will take more pictures of him, and he'll be able to promote himself and Wikia. I saw a picture of Jimbo using a T-shirt which said "Wikia" once, which is advertisement. I also think that the mere fact that he was one of the founders doesn't grant him the right to represent Wikipedia. I think that, if there's going to be any video, it should have a group of contributors randomly selected. A.Z. 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How terrible, the video portrays me as a nice guy. How dare they!--Jimbo Wales 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wales represents the image of Wikipedia and as such, it is in the interest of Wikipedia that he gains popularity. As for your second point, the reason he didn't mention that the founding issue is a controversial issue is because according to him, it isn't a controversial issue. Or would you have preferred him to say, 'I'm Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, altough some find that to be a controversial issue'? Perhaps he should've skipped the entire piece altogether, but if he must mention it, then that's how it's going to sound. The only thing I'm really reluctant about is the third-world message. I don't buy it. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you buy it? I think Wikipedia could be important for the third-world. A.Z. 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia can be important for the entire world, but I somehow think that they chose Africa and the other countries to make it look like it's a charity foundation; and even if Wikipedia is, to some extent, involved in charity, I would disagree if it assumed such an image. There are other ways to interpret that part of the video. When Wales goes around and talks to people about knowledge, it feels like Wikipedia is going there to educate them--as if they know nothing about their surroundings. But apart from all this, there are two good points made in the video: one is the Egyptian guy who argues that the gap between the industrial world and the third-world is not only material, but also in knowledge; and the second is where it shows that unprivileged kids get laptops with selective Wikipedia articles. But they should have stopped there and not make it so obvious, forcing the viewer to feel grateful for what they've done. Perhaps I'm just talking BS, but that's how I interpret the video. For me, it's no harm, because I know my stand on Wiki without the need of a video. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a fund raiser that happens every year. Further reading (in order of importance):
 * An RfC (Request for Comment)
 * An attempt to create an acceptable banner&video
 * A meta discussion
 * Main page discussion
 * A Village Pump discussion, and another Village pump discussion
 * I don't like it either, and as obvious from the above criticism, I am not the only one. Wikimedia needs the money, but perhaps we could get a video more focused on Wikimedia than Mr.Wales, and perhaps we could get an attractive banner. User: (talk • contribs • email) 19:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Jimmy Wales is indeed the right person for the job and it is about time that this process gets started. Once and Forever 02:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Advertising and the simple recognition of a need for money is part of reality; that will not go away.

Response: I used to think I created the universe. Now I am grateful just to be here. I do not want to sound condescending but my answer is a clear and resounding ... no; thank you. The Foundation has a board and directors and without a definitive leader, the project fails. Ultimately, chaos and anarchy do not work. With all due respect, wisdom requires experience, strength, hope, and a great deal of time. Once and Forever 02:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's great to know your opinion. Aren't you bothered that no one actually asked you? (I mean, the Foundation) A.Z. 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, everyone knows we do the real work. ;) Volunteer work is often thankless, and I doubt that you didn't know that Jimbo was the spokesman for Wikipedia when you first joined (Or at least soon after). What's so wrong with having a spokesman/representative? I don't think I've ever heard Jimbo say that he does the most work, or that he does the best edits & I certainly think we all know he's not God. I don't see the problem - he deserves to be up there & I don't think anyone else should. I think the video was great and it really made me want to edit Wikipedia. Spawn Man 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It all boils down to a popularity increase for WikiMedia. Whether it's Wikipedia, Jimbo himself or Wikia. Why see all these as separate entities when the money of the donations is basically meant to further all projects. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

tax deductable?
Is Wikipedia an official charity, which is to say, are donations to Wikipedia tax deductable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertglynn (talk • contribs) 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In a simple yes-or-no situation, the answer is yes. For a more detailed explanation, this link to the Wikimedia Foundation Donations page will provide much more information.  Harryboyles  12:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you mean this link? User: (talk • contribs • email) 13:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Jayjg and SlimVirgin?
I have been away for a while and on returning noticed the absence of User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin. Although I have disagreed with them on many occasions, I do think that they put a lot of time and effort into WP. Does anyone know what has happened to them? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AskWiki Launches
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/22/askwiki-answers-your.html

AskWiki -- a natural language search engine for the English Wikipedia entries -- is now in alpha. It's like an AskJeeves that actually works.

"What is BoingBoing?"

"Boing Boing (originally bOING bOING) is a publishing entity, first established as a magazine, later becoming an award winning group blog."

http://www.askwiki.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchmaven (talk • contribs) 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter encyclopedia taken to court
A suit has been filed by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. to prevent publication of a forthcoming Harry Potter encyclopedia. I think the copyright issues are interesting and relevant to Wikipedia. Haukur 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects
Some points I'd like to raise about WikiProjects: Thank you--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects are there for a reason
 * All wikipedians should join one in thier area of interest. Go join one now!
 * Watchlist it and visit it daily.
 * If your project has a review department, carry one out regularly! Make a resoloution to do one a month
 * If it doesn't, go to Peer review and Featured article candidates and help out with one in your scope!
 * Respond to comments on the talk page in a timely manner! WikiProject Biography has almost 450 members, yet it can take months to get replys on the talk page
 * If you come across an article within your scope, assess it! Don't assume someone will.
 * Help with open tasks! These can be found on the project page. Every edit to these articles coounts.
 * Help recruit! place a userbox on your talk page or use Wikipedia ads.

blah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic1234 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too. Message attitude is bossy and undiplomatic. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Password
OOPS! I just saw the "Don't give away my password" thing and I gave it away in an edit summary. I have changed it. Sorry! CofH ( ¿communicádo? )  23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiny Question
Does the revert sandbox still exist? If so, can someone give me a link? --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It got nuked by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Revert-only sandbox.  Hut 8.5  14:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
Is anyone actually working on this page? I have had an outstanding request since the 26th August. I am not aware of any of the other issues having been addressed. Regularly new requests are posted, then discussed but then just enter the backlog. The whitelist is an important tool for reverting accidental blacklisting (bots etc) but it isn't working- and if no-one is looking at the page, it seems pointless to discuss the problems there. Any ideas? ClemRutter 12:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Administrators are the ones working on it, you can raise the issue at Administrators' noticeboard. However, there are Administrators working on it and the page is still active .  You may want to contact someone who works on the list directly.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  13:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

descipher.com copying wikipedia style
I notice that descipher.com is using a clear rip-off of wikipedia style on all of its disease pages. See for an example. I doubt this is illegal but the similarity, particularly in the 'article', 'discussion' 'edit' and 'history' tabs, is close enough to be misleading and suggest the site is linked to Wikipedia. I don't know who, if anyone, seeks to protect the Wikipedia brand - you wight want to draw this to their attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.39.119 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is running the MediaWiki software, the same software that powers Wikipedia that ANYONE can use if they desire. HOWEVER, I don't see any credit to the MediaWiki software...so that IS a problem I will admit, unless the Powered by MediaWiki logo isn't needed. Fun  Pika  22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki is licensed under the GPL, which, as far as I recall, contains no requirement for displaying a logo. (There are requirements in the GPL for displaying license information under certain circumstances, but I don't think they apply in this case.  And even if they did, the site would seem to be compliant.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

smile!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just because...

timestamps for bot 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the idea that vandals might reform a pipe dream?
I've seen the argument presented many times that we should bend over backwards to not bite school kids experimenting with Wikipedia by adding "poop" to articles, because if we scare them away, we might lose a valuable future editor. Most days, I half believe that myself, and while reverting vandalism I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt. A lot. But I guess I woke up on the cynical side of the bed this morning, and I'm wondering if there's any basis for that in reality.

I think the actual "coddle vs. smackdown" argument has been done to death many times before, and I'm not looking to restart it. What I'm hoping for is real-life, first- (or, I suppose, second-, but definetely not third-) hand experience that this has occured more than say twice in the last 5 years.

So, my question is: did you, personally, start on Wikipedia by adding test edits or minor (or even major) vandalism to articles, but then switch gears and became productive? Or, do you have personal experience dealing with someone who was initially vandalizing articles, and you've personally seen them turn into a productive editor? Not "it could happen" examples, but actual experience? It would do my heart good to see real honest to God evidence that all this level-1 --> level-2 --> level-3 --> level 4 stuff isn't a waste of time. --barneca (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I started by making valuable edits. I don't doubt that vandals could become productive editors, but I've never seen it happen. Once they get it in their heads that "Wikipedia is fun to vandalize", I doubt they ever turn over a new leaf and start adding valuable edits. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard stories that a reformed vandal successfully passed an RFA. Actually, I saw the RFA but i don't remember who it was. The Placebo Effect 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to have heard something similar. Doubtless such things happen occasionally. The question is, are we so desperate for contributors that we'll jump through all these hoops to save the 1 in 1000 (or even 1 in 100) vandals who become useful to the project? Raymond Arritt 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at User_talk:Shalom, User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Draft for a third RFA nomination, . Regards, High on a tree 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets see here...my first edit (using an IP) did get reverted as vandalism I recall. If I recall correctly I was removing content I did not find notable (not a complete blanking) from the article in good faith (ironically, the entire article got deleted in an AFD as non-notable a year later). Does that answer your question? Fun Pika  20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not an actual case, but only because I am too old to have had the chance to vandalize Wikipedia in grade school (Wikipedia did not exist back in the stone ages when I was in school) ... but at that age, I am ashamed to say, I would have been exactly the sort of idiot who got a kick out of vandalizing something like Wikipedia. I know I would have done so.  Obviously, I grew out of finding that sort of behaviour funny... eventually.  So will most of the kids who constitute the majority of the vandals here... eventually.  However, what allowed me to change was that when I acted childishly, the adults in my life told me in no uncertain terms that that sort of behaviour was unacceptable.  When I got into trouble there were consequences for my actions, and I learned from those consequences.  Today's children need similar consequences when they misbehave.  Yes, the children who vandalize our articles will eventually grow up, and hopfully most of them will become valued contributers.  If we are firm with them now, so they understand that childish behavior is not permitted here, they will have a better experience with us once they do grow up. Blueboar 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I started out as a vandal, under an IP. I believe that by now I am sufficiently entrenched, as far as amount of contributions go, to disprove your theory that vandals *never* reform. I suspect there are more others than you think who started out with IP vandalism, but do not mention it in public for fear of it being used against them. Crystallina 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had a lot of experience with vandals and a lot of experience with kids. I have on occasion had a vandal apologise and state that they were mucking about and promise not to do it again, (Sorry can't remember specific examples). I have also seen on many occasions vandals stop arter warnings. Hoever when they do, they nearly always stop after the first one. If they vandalise after 5 mins of being given a warning (enough time to be sure they read it) they are not going to stop at the issue if a stronger one in my experience. As fro kids, it is normal teenage behaviour to rebel against authority. Childish vandalism is no big deal for us really. We shouldn't be rude, we shouldn't be too trigger happy but if they do get blocked fairly (kids have a very accute sense of fairplay) then no harm is done.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That matches my experience: it's usually the first warning, if any, that has an effect — although, in some cases, it seems the inclusion of the word "block" may be required before it sinks in. In any case, if I catch an IP engaged in obviously deliberate vandalism, I've taken to just blocking it for a short period (like 3 hours) with a reasonably non-bitey block message and a note on the talk page.  They way I see it, if some kid goes around, say, replacing "farming" with "farting" in articles, they know they're up to no good, and being blocked isn't likely to elicit anything worse from them than "damn, I got caught".  As you say, kids (and most adults too) tend to have a fairly good sense of fair play, and aren't going to leave in a huff just because they got briefly blocked for a prank.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey - stop being reasonable. This is the Internet; only pointlessly extreme behavior is allowed. - DavidWBrooks 17:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops... sorry about that... um... we should hunt these kids down, scalp them and hang the scalp up on the school wall with a tattoo on it saying "vandalized Wikipedia". That should get the message accross.  (is that better?) Blueboar 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the "true confessions" from several of you, and I was glad to see that Blueboar, Raymond, Theresa, and Ilmari sort of saw what I was getting at, even though I think I worded it poorly in my question. I obviously didn't mean that once someone vandalized, they would never mature and we should write them off forever; I meant to ask, if there is anyone here who started vandalizing and then very soon, after being gently guided by our kind hearted multilevel warning scheme, without being blocked, they saw the light. As you can tell from the way I worded it this time, I suspect that the four of you are right, and we will not drive a potential future contributer away from Wikipedia forever if we warn once, politely but firmly, and issue a short block after the second or third vandal edit, as long as we aren't jerks about it. The problem is, a more direct method is often frowned on by admins at AIV. --barneca (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ilmari Karonen. Seriously, kids know that replacing pages with "POOP", and "WIKI SUCKS" is wrong. We have admins as young as 13, and they are obviously able to follow the rules. I only use a level one warning if I suspect good faith, otherwise I start with level two. However, I have seen vandals apoligise, so perhaps not all of them are lost cases. Maybe. User: (talk • contribs • email) 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Im a reformed vandal. I started by vandalsing at school then at home. I got reformed when i acutaly started reading wikipedia article on firearms and i created an accoutn i belive to edit a protected page to fix something. I belive it was B.A.R or M1919. Jack The Pumpkin King 03:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the real question to ask here is: would any of you NOT have become productive editors if you were blocked (say for 3 hours or even a day) instead of warned?  Zun aid  ©  ®  07:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been inadvertently blocked a couple of times through no fault of my own, with no specific warnings issued. (It may have been because of IP spoofing or some such thing.) I got over it. &mdash; RJH (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamaha Virgo 1100 Starter Project Video
Hi there...

While searching the net for Yamaha starter problems I came across Wikipedia -- Great site. I really like the interactive Q&A -- Good Stuff. While searching your site I came across the one hour video mentioned in the subject line and I couldn't wait to dnload it. I down-loaded the video but for some unknown reason the video/audio stops playing after the first minute; right after it gets into the same problem I am having -- boy... major disappointment.

I am far from being an IT person. I know just enough about a computer to get around and get most of my tasks completed; it's these types of things that hang me up. I searched your FAQs and unfortunatelyh I did not find a similiar question/topic to help me trouble-shoot my problem.

Do you know what it is that I am doing or what it is that I should be doing to get the audio to work? The video sounds like just what the doctor ordered. I need help.... please..... pretty please :-)

Any and all assistance is GREATLY appreciated, hope to hear from you soon.

Have A Great Day, pattie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pattiepool57 (talk • contribs).

Fundraiser 2007 – Buttons and Banners
We are searching for people who can help to design buttons and banners for the Fundraiser 2007 and of course they will be used also after that period. Also the translation of the texts and people who then work on the graphics to add these texts are needed.

You can find examples for buttons that are ready right now on this page on meta and some more info about the initiative here.

Of course, should you have further questions, please contact us. Thank you!!! – 12 september 2007 Sabine

''This is a message posted according to the Village Pump list on meta. Should it go in the wrong place on your wiki, please help by correcting the link on the page on meta.''

Portal:Current events/United States
Does someone need to list Portal:Current events/United States on the watt list?? It's only got 4 stories for October! Add stories!!

Tolorence levels
I recently read sometihn about a admin who was blocked and then unblocked. One person said that this suer shouldnt be blocked becuase he had alot of edits and was a admin. I got to thinking we block new user fast for minor infractions on policy and but dont remove admin status at the slightest sight of bad conduct. Your guys opinions on this. Also feel free to change my post to maek ti legable. Jack The Pumpkin King 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For someone who has been here well under a year, you seem pretty confident about drawing conclusions about big picture things. Would you be able to define "bad conduct", and give examples of where it has been ignored? And then spell out who the "we" is that would be doing the removing of the admin status "at the slightest sign of bad conduct" - other admins? bureaucrats? ArbComm? stewards?


 * As for we block new user fast for minor infractions on policy, you don't seem to understand that we don't block people for past infractions, we block them because they ignore warnings or have no history of positive contributions whatsoever.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who HAS been here over a year (I wasn't aware that that was a 'magic' level of experience) I would like to gently remind John Broughton that we don't bite the newbies. Esskater11/Jack the Pumpkin King made a perfectly reasonably request for opinions. For what it's worth - I agree that sometimes new users are blocked too fast, and that it also appears to me that admins are excessively reluctant to censure other admins for infractions. Some admins seem to me to have no understanding or commitment whatsoever to policies such as WP:BITE or WP:CIVIL, even to congratulate each other for making bitey remarks, or to criticise users who speak out against breaches of WP:NPA. It is a real problem - but I hold out little hoip of anything changing so long as admins are free of compulsory recall and subject to no effective independent oversight. DuncanHill 15:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Kool - Sortable Table Columns
I love how table columns can be sorted! I am very impressed. Thanks, --ShaunMacPherson 06:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me.... talk pages don't show up
Is it just me or has something happened to glitch all the talk pages? The discussions seem to be hidden in some way ... I can see various Project templates, but no text. This seems to be affecting all talk pages for me. The actual articles are fine. Blueboar 14:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... as I look deaper into this, the problem seems to be selective... some articles are fine, others have the problem. Blueboar 14:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah... the problem may be with the Project Freemasonry template. I'll ask at VP (assistance) Blueboar 14:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Need peoples to discuss
Discussion at Talk:Human] regarding proper image to use for the top of the page Human - more participants welcome Helpsloose 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unicode private use area
My question is whether it would be appropriate to redirect certain PUA characters to the most common use (e.g. "" U+F208 to Latin alpha, "" U+F25F to Labiodental flap), to create disambiguations (should a disambiguation be used even when only one use exists?), etc? —Random832 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK
I have noticed that recently a lot of people have been citing WP:DICK. As that page itself says, doing that is contrary to the aims of the point the user is trying to make. What point the user is trying to make, I don't honestly know because that page doesn't make a great deal of sense. However, what I do know is that randomly calling people Dicks simply because you disagree with what they are saying is contrary to WP:CIV and probably umpteen other policies. I probably (quite foolishly) nominated the actual page at RFD without realising it had just been speedy-kept at MFD (over a convenient technical issue, i.e. it was at RFD not MFD), and promptly had my head bitten off for it. What should I do? --Blickmaestro 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just tell them the truth and warn them of uncivity. Any smart userr will back off. Jack The Pumpkin King 03:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite WP:MOBY.--WaltCip 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The two suggestions above are both good ones. Citing WP:DICK is Wikipedia's equivalent of Godwin's Law. As soon as someone cites WP:DICK, they've basically admitted that they have no option but to personally attack the editor rather than what they've done. Anyone citing WP:DICK in an argument has lost the argument, as far as I'm concerned. Grutness...wha?  23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * **nods head in agreement** - BanyanTree 12:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Same thing with WP:AGF; citing that only works if a third party steps in, & offers it as an observation. There are probably many other examples. -- llywrch 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"heartfelt" vandalism
Hi. What do you do when someone adds link after link to the same charity or medical organization when those links may not be 100% appropriate for an article? Case in point: the recent additions from 207.15.10.10. The user is putting links to http://www.childrensalopeciaproject.org all over the place. It's not completely off topic for the pages, but it does seem spammy... even if it is for a good cause. Suggestions? &mdash;Noah 08:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert and warn as spam, and report for blocking as appropriate. I edit in Africa article and it's amazing how many people think it is appropriate make a list of external link to charities in articles ranging from country-level to town-level.  If they have publications that can be used to cite content, then they're welcome to do that. You might be nicer than normal in explaining to the user why their edits are not welcome, but just adding external links is obvious spam.  - BanyanTree 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, thanks. &mdash;Noah 03:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Longest article
What is the longest article in the en-wp at the moment and do you have a special page that lists the longest ones? Thanks --Agadez 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * List of placental mammals and Special:Longpages. Tra (Talk) 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the longest article at that time was Melbourne Victory FC at 1,418,902 bytes.  That was very strange vandalism that I reverted.  Now the placental mammals have retaken their place at the top at 294,997 bytes.  &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please.......
....this (may be) a slightly odd request: but I'd like a new set of eyes to look at something.....would someone please view Talk: Street Magic and view my comment on copyright violation near the bottom of the page (after reading the article of course). I'd like to hear what maybe a "non-magician" thinks. Sure is a beautiful intro, but I don't think it's original. Buddpaul 15:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, don't see any comment by you at Talk: Street Magic. More generally, you might want to post this sort of request at the editor assistance page. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sitophilia and Food play
Isn't it quite the same thing? Even if there's a little difference, does it deserve 2 different articles? Since English is not my mother tongue I let you discuss and decide! --86.66.173.221 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, someone should put merger templates on the two articles, or, better yet, just merge the first into the second. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Such technical data
I get so frustrated when contacting Wikipedia because I am looking for relatively simple and direct answers. '''I am not seeking information found in a post-graduate course. ''' Some of these entries were written by people with doctorate degrees, for God's sake. Every other encyclopedia in the world is written so that an average adult with an average IQ can understand it. I think it is silly for such extreme explanations to be here. Persons who can understand some of these entries (dioxin, for example) are NOT the persons who would be consulting Wikipedia. Please make your entries for the lesser informed. There are other places people can go for doctorate level information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.87.62.215 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can slap a confusing tag on the article, preferably with a note on the talk page explaining your concern. Note that, for many subjects, the only way to accurately describe something is to get technical.  See featured articles Photon and 0.999... for what is considered 'as good as it gets'. - BanyanTree 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * An article has to be accessible to a lot of people. The people you think don't access the article actually do read it, but to find out more complicated information than you ever would. We aim to make things readable for as much people as possible, but some complicated matters are just impossible to explain in easier language. Is there any particular article you are having issues with? - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article Dioxin has a lengthy hatnote which eventually points the reader to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, which is presumably where this user really wanted to go. A shorter hatnote would probably help, as would putting the technical section of the latter article lower in the article, since that's among the least likely things a reader would be interested in. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Help me, I can't figure this out!
I tried to post this at the request-page, but I was redirected to another page which I couldn't figure out - so I'm just going to post it here and hope for the best:

Headline: White Noise (Supernatural Phenomenon)

I have searched Wikipedia all over and nowhere does this subject come to veiw; White noise as a supernatural phenomenon. Maybe someone knows enough about it to at least start an article; It's like EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) but visually instead of auditory. I followed the disambiguation of query 'White Noise' and nothing regarding the supernatural/paranormal phenomenon occured. Only an article about the movie 'White Noise' and another article about it's sequel, 'The Light' which are horror thrillers regarding the exact subject. So please, someone; make this article a reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.83.195 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I think it's quite unlikely that there are reliable sources that discuss this, it's unlikely that an article can be created that meets Wikipedia's requirements (verifiability and no original research, among other things). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak from my personal experience in saying that after listening to a number of supposed EVP recordings, I have heard no voices and no intelligeble message in any form. It is sad that people who have lost loved ones will pretend to hear voices where there are none, their pain must be great. You can watch this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSSqQ_gJlXU&eurl=http://www.aaevp.com/ ) to judge for yourself. User:Bloodspike 21:27 11 March 2008

Special:CrossNamespaceLinks
Any idea why this has become semi-historical - I was going to put in some work there, but it all seems very out of date, no updates or talk page comments since the end of 2006. If it has become historical, how come it hasn't been deleted? Cricketgirl 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a special page. It can't be deleted – Gurch 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? (Don't mean to sound narky, just curious...) Cricketgirl 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The main difference between a special page and normal wiki pages is that special pages have their own server-side code and exist to perform a particular job, e.g. logging in, collecting together the most recent edits or customizing the interface. Normal wiki pages are simply a record in a database, and can be viewed, edited, reverted, deleted etc.
 * There is no option in the interface for anyone (including admins) to delete a special page (as they are handled differently). The only way to remove a special page is for a developer to disable it by modifying the server side code. Tra (Talk) 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All of which isn't relevant to the fundamental issue - this report was last generated a year ago. It's actually a quite useful report - for example, it identifies editors who mistakenly added their signature in article pages. To whom should a request be made to have the report run again? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Last chance to photograph the Anne Frank Tree
Wikipedians in the area should note that the Anne Frank Tree is scheduled to be cut down in a few days. Last chance to take a photo of it. (SEWilco 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC))


 * I have notified the local wikiproject. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Communist Party
I was searching for the Congressional staffer edits on Wikipedia, on the website this site. At the bottom of the page, the "Who owns this IP address" thing (a little like WikiScanner), I used it to search for the word "Party". I found edits from California Democratic Party, Wisconsin Democratic Party, and other handy stuff, however certain results caught my attention. Remember the whole controversy when the PRC government banned Wikipedia in China? Well, the astounding thing was, I found results for the Chinese Communist Party. If I understand correctly (please correct me if I am not), this says a computer registered to the CPC edited Wikipedia. So, they are breaking their own rules (whether it is Jintao [probably not], his henchmen, or his maid) because whoever is accessing that computer is registered to the CPC. Check this out:


 * YUEQING COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA     60.190.66.24 - 60.190.66.31


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA OFFICE OF COUNTY PART    60.190.69.56 - 60.190.69.67


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA OFFICE OF COUNTY PART    60.190.69.88 - 60.190.69.95


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA JIAXING PARTY SCHOOL     60.190.131.244 - 60.190.131.247


 * HAINING CHINESE COMMUNIST SHIWEI PARTY SCHOOL    60.190.132.20 - 60.190.132.23


 * CHINA COMMUNIST PARTY SHANDONG PROVINCE COMMITTEE     60.208.81.228 - 60.208.81.231


 * CHINA COMMUNIST PARTY SHANDONG PROVINCE COMMITTEE     60.216.0.192 - 60.216.0.223


 * CHINA COMMUNIST PARTY JINAN CITY COMMITTEE OFFICE    60.216.88.0 - 60.216.88.31


 * CHINA COMMUNIST PARTY SHANDONG PROVINCE COMMITTEE     60.216.97.216 - 60.216.97.223


 * BAZHOU COMMUNIST PARTY COMITTEE,XINJIANG    61.128.106.228 - 61.128.106.231


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY COMMITTEE OF CHANGJI HUI AUTON    61.128.108.116 - 61.128.108.119


 * SHANDONG RIZHAO COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL    61.133.106.224 - 61.133.106.255


 * ZHEJIANG PROVINCIAL PARTY INSTITUTE OF COMMUNIST P    61.153.1.144 - 61.153.1.159


 * ZHEJIANG PROVINCIAL PARTY INSTITUTE OF COMMUNIST P    61.153.1.228 - 61.153.1.231


 * WENZHOU CHINESE COMMUNIST SHIWEI PARTY SCHOOL    61.153.43.80 - 61.153.43.87


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA CANGNAN ORGANIZATION     61.153.47.96 - 61.153.47.111


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL (HAIYAN)    61.153.228.72 - 61.153.228.75


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA ORGANIZATIO    61.154.41.156 - 61.154.41.159


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA JINHUA PARTY SCHOOL O    61.175.240.252 - 61.175.240.255


 * NANNING, COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA OF GUANGXI PROVI    202.103.232.144 - 202.103.232.151


 * CHINA COMMUNIST PARTY COMMITTEE JIASHAN VETERAN CA    202.107.232.176 - 202.107.232.179


 * SHANDONG COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL    202.110.204.112 - 202.110.204.127


 * SHANDONG YANTAI ZHAOYUAN CITY COMMUNIST PARTY COMM    202.110.205.192 - 202.110.205.223


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY XINJIANG UIGUR AUTONOMOUS     210.26.136.0 - 210.26.143.255


 * THE PARTY SCHOOL OF CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY OF NAN    211.70.36.0 - 211.70.39.255


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL OF INNER MONGOLIA A    211.82.128.0 - 211.82.135.255


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL OF INNER MONGOLIA A    211.82.188.0 - 211.82.188.255


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL    218.5.65.80 - 218.5.65.95


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST HEI LONG JIANG PARTY SCHOOL    218.7.6.32 - 218.7.6.47


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST HENAN PARTY SCHOOL    218.28.168.240 - 218.28.168.255


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SHANDONG PROVINCIAL PARTY     218.56.56.252 - 218.56.56.255


 * ZAOZHUANG-XUECHENG CITY COMMITTEE COMMUNIST PARTY     218.56.152.48 - 218.56.152.51


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST LAIWU COMMITTEE PARTY SCHOOL    218.56.160.144 - 218.56.160.151


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY JINAN COMMITTEE OFFICE    218.57.131.16 - 218.57.131.23


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY JINING YANZHOU COMMITTEE    218.57.205.72 - 218.57.205.79


 * THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA PARTY SCHOO    218.66.251.176 - 218.66.251.191


 * VETERAN CADRE OFFICE OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA Q    218.72.248.36 - 218.72.248.39


 * WUYI PARTY INSTITUTE OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA    218.75.92.12 - 218.75.92.15


 * WUXITHE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA PROPAGANDA DEPART    218.90.146.204 - 218.90.146.207


 * JINGJIANG COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL    218.90.236.176 - 218.90.236.179


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL OF XIN JIANG AUTONO    219.247.84.0 - 219.247.84.255


 * COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA SHANXIAN MUNICIPAL COMMIT    221.1.209.68 - 221.1.209.71


 * COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA CHENGWU MUNICIPAL COMMITT    221.1.213.136 - 221.1.213.139


 * COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA JUANCHENG MUNICIPAL COMMI    221.1.215.140 - 221.1.215.143


 * LUOHE COMMUNIST PARTY COMMITTEE-RIZHAO    221.2.63.200 - 221.2.63.203


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SHANDONG PROVINCIAL PARTY     221.214.1.80 - 221.214.1.95


 * CHINA COMMUNIST PARTY SHANDONG PROVINCE COMMITTEE     221.214.4.248 - 221.214.4.255


 * CHINA COMMUNIST PARTY SHANDONG PROVINCE COMMITTEE     221.214.7.140 - 221.214.7.143


 * ZHANGJIAGANG COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL    221.224.57.192 - 221.224.57.199


 * CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SCHOOL OF SICHUAN REGION-C    222.19.40.0 -222.19.40.255


 * TAOLUO COMMUNIST PARTY COMMITTEE-RIZHAO    222.133.184.24 - 222.133.184.31

Note the formal ones with "municipal", "city", and like terms.

Sure, that is a harassing site, but I needed to mention this which has nothing to do with the real-life identities of admins.

Of course, that search may mean something different, and I may be wrong. But, the search may mean something else. What to do about this? ʃ Jurist Prudence  03:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You appear to be misinformed about two things. First, Wikipedia has no rule against editing from an IP address associated with any particular political party, government, or organization. For all we know, an individual is using an organization's computer for his/her own purposes. Second, even if editing was being done by individuals following official orders, this is only a problem if it violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline or other guidelines or policies. If you have evidence of that, you should follow the normal procedures (see WP:AN for where to report various problems). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)