Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 48

Electronic cigarette page order RFC
A RFC has been started to gauge the way the page is ordered. To change the Electronic cigarette article, which is about a consumer product, from its present order to one that as Health Effects first. There was a previous RFC that found no consensus for a medical order. Here is a link to the current RFC. AlbinoFerret 21:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This RFC could use input from uninvolved Wikipedia editors, please consider responding. AlbinoFerret  15:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please INCREASE the size of the search box
I'm sure you've been advised to do this a million times, but doesn't it make a lot of sense to increase the size of your "search box?" That's why 99.99% of people come to your webpage, not for "featured articles" or "Did you know's...." And yet it's this tiny box up in the corner. Makes no sense at all. Please, just make this common sense suggestion happen. You should also seriously consider putting it more front and center, rather than stuck in a corner. That really makes no sense either.

Thanks kindly.

JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.132.83 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a really good idea. Currently, too much of the main page is focused on showing off what we think is interesting, rather than actually helping readers. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The position was chosen to be consistent with other major websites. . --   Gadget850talk 22:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , that isn't helpful to the original poster since they're an anon IP. Unless you're proposing we make it a default gadget. I wouldn't oppose this, but would like to hear from WMF since this would be an interface change.  I would oppose it being the focus of the page though.  — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice IP. --  Gadget850talk 23:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Gadget850's comment is helpful, as it might encourage the IP user to create an account. GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a request to focus on readers instead of editors. I have three accounts for various reasons, and I don't always log in to look stuff up.  This especially true when I'm on a public computer from school or the library. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JS, I'd make the search box 300px wide. I'd also increase font size by 20%. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping to User:Mdennis (WMF), who might have some wisdom to share. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like a good idea to me, so I filed the request as T85329.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

FEVE and drawing railway maps
I am not certain in wich forum to put the questions.

I am buzy drawing KML lines to get to calculate the distance from Ferrol tot Bilbao. Ferrol Infiesto 307 km I have come to Infiesto. As I am not even halfway the mentioned distance of 650 km for Ferrol - Bilbao looks real. The problem with the source is that it is looping. fact-index gets its information from Wikipedia. Does someone know the original source? I have tried Google but no luck this far.

How can I make a vectorial map once I have researched the KML lines? There are a lot of details to add such as tunnels and stations. In the past I have drawn lots of maps such as File:Charleroi SNCV-SNCB openstreetmap background.png with Photoshop and layer, but this is labour intensive and not flexible.

Last a railway question: is there a connection between the FEVE lines and the EuskoTren network in Bilbao. My reference books are unclear about this point. In some historic maps there is an connection but not in others.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This last question I solved: on Openstreetmap there is a railway link visible between the two networks between Basurtu (FEVE) and Basauri-Aritz (EuskoTren).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Same as
Is this page actually same as Finnish Wikipedians, " Kahvihuone / Kysy vapaasti"^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.99.96 (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

tried — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman897 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The page most similar to this on the Finnish Wikipedia would be Wikipedia:Kahvihuone (sekalaista). On this Wikipedia there is also the Teahouse/Questions where you can ask about editing, I think that is closer to the Kahvihuone (kysy vapaasti). w.carter -Talk  19:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Christmas spam an appropiate use of mass messaging?
I'm not sure where the appropriate forum for this discussion would be so it landed here. This concerns the use of the "mass message" user right by

Last week I got this message delivered by the mass message bot thing. Note the irony of claiming "heartfelt and warm greetings" followed by an explanation that this is an automated message sent to every single person who has ever made an edit to his talk page. Like ever. I looked at my contribs to talk pages and as far as I can see whatever edit I made there was more than a year ago. If I don't want to receive this message every year for the rest of my life, I have to explicitly opt out of it by removing my name from a list in his userspace. A list that does not appear to be well-maintained as it contains some users who have been blocked or banned for a long time, some of whom would not even have talk page access so they can't remove or archive the message, let alone remove themselves from the list.

Sorry for being a Scrooge, but I do not feel this is an appropriate use of mass messaging. If you want to send out "Season's Greetings" that's fine but it should be personal, not some auto-generated spam list, and I don't feel that I should have to explicitly opt out of something I had no idea I was opting into. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and was put out to find out I had to opt out. Perhaps we should have discussed with T13 first. Spartaz Humbug! 20:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, despite only hearing a few objections, I wasn't thrilled with how the message went out either. Over the course of the next year (since I rarely send out those things), I'll be developing a script extension to WikiLove that does a much cleaner job of it. I'm more than happy to take suggestions on how such a script should filter out users. Feedback is certainly more than welcome. As to whether or not it is appropriate for to be used in this manner, I'm kind of undecided about that myself. Not having the tool doesn't prevent a user from mass messaging others. I felt using it for that purpose was too impersonal, so I won't be doing it again, but I can see others doing it in the future and am not sure that it should be declared an improper usage. Anyways, since my brain tends to ramble, I'll leave this as is and await feedback. I appreciate anyone that comments. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest I thought it was rather thoughtful of T13, Although like everyone else he could've done it manually ?, I don't mind one editor sending xmas stuff via Mass Messaging but if more than one editor chose to then it'd cause alot of crap, Meh If T13 is the only one to use it for this then I don't really see a problem. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My short answer is "yes" it is appropriate. I'm not crazy about bots for most usages, because they can only do a limited job; however, for something simple that must go to a large segment of editors, bots can save a lot of time.  Personal or impersonal is a matter of opinion.  And if you don't want to watch the show, then turn the TV off (in this case, opt out – no big deal).  OTOH, usage of a bot should first be tested so that anomalies don't occur on the mass run.  Never should a bot be run massively unless its usage has first been tested on a small sample! –  Paine Ellsworth    21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No Spamming Merry Christmas is very unhelpful, and forcing people to jump through hoops (follow the instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list) is offensive. If it is desirable for these messages to go out, MediaWiki should be modified to automatically pop a box on the talk page of every user who has edited in the last year. If an editor wants to deliver a personal message to a few of their wikifriends, that is fine—but it should be done personally. The guidelines at WP:MMS need to be updated to spell this out because fashions tend to spread, and mass-messaging should be used to benefit the encyclopedia. Wikilove by spambot is not love. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's appropriate to do this at all, then it's appropriate to do this by any method that does the job. If it's not okay to send 300 of these, then it's not okay to do it manually or via the MassMessage extension.  If it's okay to do this, then it's okay to do this manually or via MassMessage.  "You can send 300 identical messages only if you don't have physical disabilities that prevent you from doing it manually" is nowhere in our policies or principles".  Neither is "You can send 300 identical messages to people who probably don't care only if you do it in the most painful method we can come up with".  Or, to put it another way, why should Technical13's "mindless spamming" of 300 people really be considered any worse than the equally "mindless", but apparently manual spamming of almost 250 people by another editor?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Christmas messages are supposed to be personal, ideally tailored for each recipient according to what they have done in the past year. Mass messaging is impersonal (because the username that shows in the page history and watchlist is not a real person), xeroxed, and when malformed (e.g. by inclusion of that archiving bots won't touch, requiring each recipient to ) it's also annoying. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 01:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Other massmessages
I'm making a subsection here since this thought is associated with Technical 13 and spreading of information, but not with Season Greetings.
 * Since you are able to send out info in this manner, might it not be appropriate to get the info about the great new feature for the OneClickArchiver, that we rejoiced over on my talk page, out to other editors who use it? I very much doubt most editors check the Archiver page regularly and most might miss it since it is so subtle. w.carter -Talk  00:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be an appropriate way to get the word out. I may at some point add a message box directly to the script that tells about new features, but the script isn't ready for that yet. :) —   22:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment peerage
I keep running into articles that cite http://www.leighrayment.com/, along with super-headings that this is not a reliable resource. Somewhere in the past this source was heavily used, and there appears to be a macro that takes this: "" and turns it into a full citation. So my questions are: 1) can anyone give me that background on this (I'm curious), and 2) what should we do with these articles? These folks are highly unlikely to turn up in a Google search, that's for sure. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that it falls within WP:SPS. Unfortunately, I know of no other source that lists every UK parliamentary constituency for several hundred years and also gives the names of every MP that has represented each constituency, right up to the present time (e.g. Elizabeth McInnes, elected 9 October 2014 to represent Heywood and Middleton. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Leigh Rayment is the authority on the peerage, but is, as RedRose remarks "self published". There are other examples, the most authoritative catalogue of East Anglian Anglo-Saxon pennies is self-published.  And of course a large number of seminal reference works - one might cite Burke's Peerage, published by Burke - were self published.  Leigh Rayment's site is also free, whereas Burke's Peerage currently retails at £399.
 * Personally I would have no problem with the removal of the request for better sourcing. However the idea is that the sourcing should be pushed back to the same (or similar) sources that Rayment uses, for example, Burke's, Debrett's, Who's Who, The London Gazette (et al.), Hansard, Victoria County Histories.
 * A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Bitcoin RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede
There is currently a RFC on the Bitcoin article asking if criminal activities should be in the lead. Here is a link Uninvolved editors adding a comment would be helpful. AlbinoFerret 17:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Short core articles
According to this page the following critical articles (of List of articles every Wikipedia should have) at less than 10k count as "stubs"
 * 1) behaviour
 * 2) prose
 * 3) nose
 * 4) chemical compound
 * 5) salt
 * 6) Sorghum
 * 7) song

Another 120 are listed as "short".

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC).


 * I don't think that's entirely up to date, even if you disregard the odd metric (all of these are rated Start-class except one C and one GA). Salt, the WP:GA, is over 50K.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy Public Domain Day!
Feel free to translate this message in your language!

On January 1 we celebrate Public Domain Day as many works of authors who died 70+ years ago now enter the public domain and can be used freely.

Let us be aware: copyright is temporary. It only lasts during the authors lifetime and 70 years afterwards (in most countries). During those years it is limiting Wikipedia and her sister projects in showing works of art, literature, public art and buildings in countries without freedom of panorama, and more in the articles. But now a new batch is freed from copyrights!

An overview of images and texts that are restored or added to the Wikimedia Commons, are collected on: this page.

Many of these files still need a place in articles. You can help!

You can also help by uploading new files of subjects that are freed of copyrights.

You can also help by tagging all requests for deletion pages with the category when the file can be restored, which will be/was deleted.

As I follow the log of restored files this week, more images and texts will follow. If still files or texts are missing in the list, let me know or add them yourselves.

A very happy Public Domain Day! Romaine (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of the freed files:

Need help to fix pages with wrong ISBN
There are at about 850 pages with the with checksum in the ISBN-13 does not match. I use WP:WPCleaner (by selecting error #73) to spot these and then copy the book's title in Amazon or any other site to find the correct ISBN and fix it. This is time consuming! I need help from the community! Example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is tricky, as you need to ensure you are using the ISBN that actually matches the source in question. A simple typo or transposed character is easy. But a found ISBN that is very different from the original may indicate a different version of the source. Then there are ISBNs that are are printed in the source but were never registered for some reason or were printed incorrectly. --  Gadget850talk 14:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gadget850 True. That's why we need editors' help. In further reading sections this my not be a problem at all. In some cases I had to entirely remove the ISBN. In some cases it was only a comma missing between the ISBN number and the number of pages of the book causing script confusion. Any help is appreciated. The more editors involved the best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another good example. I believe that we can reduce this list in half if we get approx. 5 editors involved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a tracking category? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy Mabbett I use WP:WPCleaner. Select "Project Check Wikipedia" and then error #73. Alternatively go to . -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The tool made by NicoV has the advantage that it highlights with red all broken ISBN's and by clicking at the green button you ca check whether your action fixed the problem before submitting. It's quite convenient. Bgwhite helps in giving us daily scans of pages with problems in ISBN. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy Mabbett We also have Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs which contains less pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , that category is out of date. It was being populated by a now inactive bot.  There are two tracking categories.  Category:Pages with ISBN errors that checks ISBNs inside CS1 citations and Checkwiki's ISBN errors that checks ISBNs outside of templates.  Bgwhite (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether Rich Farmbrough could help us. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is tricky, my ISBN work was sadly interrupted about 2 1/2 years ago. I have some stuff to do tomorrow, but I'll try and investigate a little more inhte evening. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

Question about notability
First of all I do not know if this is the correct place to ask this question. If not, I'd appreciate for someone to direct me to the correct location.

Would Earnest Pletch meet the requirements of WP:Notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stolitsa740 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Notability (people). GoingBatty (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Difficulty removing an obsolete quote from the CMT article

 * Maybe this isn't the place for this. . . I and several editors have been trying to get a single sentence deleted from the Christ Myth Theory article for some time. I just put in an rfc request on the talk page. One would think this is a no-brainer, because the sentence is obviously wrong, as we've painfully demonstrated repeatedly on the talk page. But editors (not one, several) keep reverting to the old sentence and absolutely resisting its removal.


 * Here's the problem in a nutshell: A well-known scholar, M. Grant, asserted in 1977 that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'. This may arguably have been true back then, but since that time several well-known scholars have actually publicly (and in print) given their professional opinion that Jesus did not exist as a flesh and blood person. This view is now known as the "Christ Myth Theory," which is the topic of the page.


 * One of us uploaded a whole list of over 50 citations of scholars supporting the CMT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT). Two of the most well known and undoubtedly "serious" scholars to endorse the CMT in recent years are the Canadian Tom Harpur, Ph.D, and the Irish academic Thomas L. Brodie, Ph.D. Both have argued repeatedly in print (their quotes can be found on the above link) that Jesus did not exist as a flesh and blood person (he was a spirit). Just with these two scholars (there are others), Grant's quote is now obviously false. So why is it proving impossible to get this obviously false quote deleted from the article?Renejs (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because edit-warring and POV-pushing like René has been doing aren't the way to resolve a content dispute. He is alone in pushing his view. When people restore the article to the WP:STATUSQUO version and ask him to obtain a consensus for his controversial edits, as per WP:BRD, then that's not edit-warring, provided they engage in discussion on the Talk page as they have. If René feels a local consensus that doesn't reflect a consensus among Wikipedians in general is obstructing progress, then he is free to start a conflict resolution procedure. He should be aware that this can WP:BOOMERANG on him, especially if he's been violating Wikipedia procedures. IMO his recent persistent and blatant edit-warring merits an immediate temporary block.
 * As for Grant's statement (which appears to be a quote from an earlier scholar), I don't think any of the editors René has been arguing with disputes that this statement is no longer true. Per WP:TRUTH this doesn't matter, as we merely provide the quote as an attributed opinion in a criticism section. An additional counterpoint provided by René seems inappropriate, since we don't argue with reliable sources and don't engage in point-counterpoint to neutralise quotes we don't like.
 * Constructive discussion on the merits is certainly welcome, but edit-warring and violating the rules aren't. René is a SPA engaged in advocacy on a topic he has published on himself, arguably constituting a COI. His edits also suggest at least a lack of interest in Wikipedia goals and policies and possibly a lack of awareness of them. Either way I find his behaviour disruptive. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Check your facts, first, Mmeijeri. You write: "He is alone in pushing his view." False. Gekritzl has been promoting it for a long time, the talk page also has the supporter Tgeorgescu, and I have received several messages (unknown to you) from other wikipedians (off the page). I am hardly alone!
 * But what astonishes me is not only that you're incorrect, but that you openly have no respect for the truth. If you read the WP:Truth page, you will see that verifiability is the prime criterion. Right there, the "no serious scholar" statement of Grant falls on its face. Case closed.
 * And, by the way, my Wiki handle is Renejs.Renejs (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is google news archive available again?
For many years a subfeature of google news -- the google news archive -- was a feature that was extremely useful to serious wikipedia contributors. But then, with no advance notice, the archive feature went away, or seemed to go away, following a cosmetic redesign.

Now google news seems to have google news archive feature again. Google has been aggressive in trying to force me to use an interface customized for Canada. Is it my imagination the archive feature went away? And, if it did, I'd be interested in the opinion of others as to how comparable is this archive feature to the original archive feature? Geo Swan (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Did it go away? Yes.  See Google News Archive.  How do you do search for archived articles now?  See https://support.google.com/news/answer/1638638?hl=en, which is linked from a popup form on the main Google News page (at least, that's how I found it).  Is it comparable?  Well, the obvious thing is that it doesn't support date ranges extending before 1970, as the old archive search did.  Which is a pretty serious limitation.  --65.94.50.4 (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright infringement on YouTube
Hey. I just wanted to ask if anybody knows what company is copyright owner of Lana Del Rey's Summertime Sadness, because someone illegally used that song in their video and I wanted to let the copyright owners know, but I don't know who they are.  Alex discussion ★ 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Summertime Sadness" lists the label as Interscope Records, so you might want to start with them. GoingBatty (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A Wikimedian ambassador in south of India
I've just finished an article intituled A Wikimedian ambassador in south of India. If somebody is interested, just click. A nice day to every one. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Wiki ou eMail 20:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Typhaine Case User:Panam2014/Typhaine Case
Hi Can you help me to translate fr:Affaire_Typhaine_Taton. It could be a good article for our encyclpedia. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen WP:RFT? That has plenty of advice on such matters. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For knowledge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#.22Civil_engineering_community.22 Dornicke (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Adam (band)
The Speedy deletion of Adam (band) is again another example of why wikipedia needs to be seriously reformed. 750editsstrong (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention
 * Deletions_and_editor_retention

If deleted see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewhitebox#RFC

Full text:



Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Wikipedia has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration.


 * 1) I remember when established editors posed as new editors, and almost everyone of their new pages were deleted.  The larger community was infuriated, not by how new editors were shown to be treated, but that established editors would pose as new editors.  I know there is a 80% chance that my article will be deleted within one hour of it being created.  If I have no references, it is within 5 minutes.
 * 2) I remember how Jimmy Wales blessed the wide spread deletion of hundreds of bibliography articles with no notice, writing on the editors talk page what a wonderful job he did.
 * 3) I remember the secret offline collusion in the case - twenty or so editors were working together to disrupt wikipeda and get tens of thousands of articles deleted.  Any other time the editors would be banned, but instead any editors who mentioned the case were warned.
 * 4) I remember the dozens of articles from mainstream media that complained how an incredibly notable article was deleted often within 5 minutes.
 * 5) I  remember the episode wars over television shows. In which editors wanted to delete thousands of pages on all television series.
 * 6) I remember how I quit uploading non-copyrighted images from the 1890s because they were always deleted in mass, even when I put the right tags on them.
 * 7) I have been appalled at many of the really mean editors who have become administrators and the arbcoms. The arbcoms get Jimmy's blessing.
 * 8) I have been disgusted at how established editors treat other new editors, describing their new article monitoring as "garbage men" stopping "garbage"
 * 9) I am shocked that every time I see an old editors page from 2006 or before, who really fought for treating editors nicely, he has been banned or left in disgust.  Every time.
 * 10) There is a new trend the last couple of years. I am appalled at extremely ignorant editors deleting whole sections of articles citing copyright violations.  They have absolutely no understanding of copyright. Fair use is ignored and deletion is emphasized.

Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors.

I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind.
 * Sadly I see only one solution

If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it.

Thoughts?


 * Take it easy is all I am going to say, you are overacting to this. Avono (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we get someone to warn User:Ansh666 not to delete whole sections of Administrators' noticeboard? Does anyone see the irony in what is going on here? Editors who support the status quo of deleting other editors contributions, are deleting other editors contributions!  Please lets have a discussion about this, instead of deleting each others comments.  Deleting other peoples contributions only causes conflict. 750editsstrong (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Orduin who this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard discusses deletes most of this section:
 * Ansh666 deletes this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard section:

Original text that was deleted here:
 * [copy and pasted text removed again].-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ...do you even understand how this place works before trying to burn it down? From the contributions on your 3 linked accounts and the "RfC", it doesn't seem like it. You're slinging personal attacks at, complaining of some vast deletionist conspiracy, based on a horrible half-attempt to follow some old experiment that mostly worked. I'm not going to engage you further, please do not try to talk to me unless absolutely necessary. ansh666 23:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ansh666 is not deleting whole sections of the noticeboard. He is simply removing what he thinks is spam, especially because of the incidents surrounding this event. Your contributions are still there, but there is no need to shout or post this everywhere. Also, the data from the experiment is 5 years old. It is time to move on. Drop the stick. -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 23:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A deletion notice was placed on an article with zero sources, despite the edit page screen telling users multiple times that sources are required. I see no symptom of the downfall of Wikipedia here. It functioned as desired and as designed. --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Golbez Unsourced is only a deletion criteria for BLPs and this was a band not a BLP. The deletion tag was actually A7 and technically was valid. I'm not sure if the article would survive AFD, but this is a good example of why it would be good not to tag articles as A7 in the first few minutes of creation.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two paths of response: One, while 'unsourced' may not in itself be a criteria for deletion, what WAS there was so sparse that it required sourcing. Otherwise saying "Adam is a band" is not deletion-worthy, which is nonsense. Two, I would very much disagree that a band cannot fall under BLP. If I said "This random band sings Nazi music" then I very much suspect that it would draw BLP complaints. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @750editsstrong May I remind you of the comments I made on this on one of your previous posts at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention? In repeating your post without responding to that sort of critique you risk undermining the valid parts of your case. Yes Wikipedia has problems, and deletionism is one of them, but exaggerating the problems undermines rather than reinforces your case.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes some editors are too mean. No Jimbo stepping down won't help, since he is rarely directly involved with running this site. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are some new-page patrollers who are far too trigger-happy. It is unacceptable for to tag a page for speedy deletion under WP:A7 just one minute after the page is created. There are criteria - such as WP:G10 (Attack pages) and WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) - where immediate action is desirable; but for most other criteria, A7 included, the creator must be given a chance to build it up. There are good reasons why WP:NPP recommends patrolling from the back. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree actually. Tagging a page is better, but this seemed too far off, and I was wondering why musicians having orgasms during a song was important to Wikipedia. I did, and still do not, see why it should be necessary (and that is why I will be avoiding the article for awhile). -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that they claim not to be a new user (12 years!), and they should know how the wiki works enough to avoid it if they were actually trying. This was a WP:POINTy article creation, and deserves to be WP:TNT'd at best. ansh666 00:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I regularly patrol CAT:CSD looking for "bad" A7s and try and decline any ones that don't meet the criteria (example). However, most do. Additionally, the actual facts and figures at WP:NEWT show that, at least in 2009, NPP was far less "trigger happy" on CSDs than 80%. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Spending a lot of time at the Teahouse and helping newbies, I don't think that "trigger happy" reviewers is the only thing that makes the number of active editors drop. Many newbies nowadays are used to all the sophisticated, automatic, technical aspects of social media on the Internet in a way that was not as common in 2007. They expect things to work the same way here and find all the things you have to do manually to be too much of a bother. So they have a hard time really getting involved in the community let alone make decent edits in articles, resulting in speedy deletion, disappointment and quitting. We also often demand refs from book, newspapers and journals, but how do we deal with this when young newbies, our future grand editors, come from a generation who have only seen texts on screens and have never visited a library or a bookstore? I have no idea how to solve this, but I think these are questions we should start to look at. w.carter -Talk  19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re the graph apparently showing editor decline, remember those are raw figures. Many things have contributed to them including the rise of the edit filters and the shift of many internet users to devices such as mobiles on which Wikipedia editing is impractical. If the edit filters were running as real time bots instantaneously reverting vandalism that they currently reject then we would have many millions more edits, possibly more than we peaked with in 2007. But we are better off without that vandalism, even if it does make the raw edit figures look bad. It takes 5 edits to get four warnings and a block, so the number of editors doing their fifth edit is a very poor metric for community health.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So an old editor pretending to be a newbie creates a pointless article on a WP:NOTNEWS band, gets the response they wanted, and rushes everywhere to raise a big WP:POINT? Yawn. Resolute 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Related and this is the best place perhaps to mention it, I've brought Requests for comment/Deletions and editor retention to MfD, suggesting it be userfied as nothing to do with RFC. The discussion is here.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem
I think that what's going on here is as follows: Just to clarify the obsticals a new user must overcome now in order to become a siginficantly constructive editor: עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) As time goes on, we have fewer administration hours per disruptive hours. (Administration hours defined to include not only admin actions, but also vandalism fighting, XfD time, etc.)
 * 2) To deal with the reduction of administration hours per disruptive hours, we come up with various shortcuts which cause the disruption to be stopped by the software - edit filters, semi protection, anon-only blocking of IPs (we can now block major public IPs without worrying about possible issues with registered users), IP block exemption (which allows us to use more hard blocks for IPs), blocking of meatpuppets (frequently from a single IP - and they look like sockpuppets, but aren't), expanding the speedty deletion criteria, etc.
 * 3) These shortcuts tend to scare off te editors who may end up being good admins otherwise, making the reduction of hours a more serious problem. Additionally, some of our  major sockpuppeteers may, in fact, be users who were BITten by these shortcuts.
 * 1) The page the user wants to edit for their first edit must not have any protection (even semi) - and this page is likely to be a BLP, current event, or controvertial topic - all of which tend to be semi-protected.
 * 2) The user's IP address must not be blocked - which many school- mand public-IP addresses are.
 * 3) The page must not have a BITEy edit notice - which every BLP, and many controvertial topics do.
 * 4) The edit must not hit any disallow or warn filters - even a warn without a disallow is BITEy.
 * 5) The edit must survive for a reasonable amount of time, and the user must not get a BITEy message on his/her talk page.
 * 6) Onvce a user, by some miracle, has passed all these hurdles, (s)he is likely to recommend that his/her friends help him/her with editing - and then they will all be blocked as sockpuppets.
 * The big question is, then, how do we reverse this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While I don't have any complet solution to the issue, I believe that each of the following should help:
 * Make BITE a higher priority than BLP enforcement - BLP is probably the most BITEy policy, since it basically means that if a user wants to edit the most popular first-edit pages, (s)he first needs to read Biographies of living persons (45K) and Identifying reliable sources (32K).
 * Careful about IP blocks - any long-term block for IP addresses should only be done after, or in paralel to, contacting the ISP and trying to get them to help us with the problem.
 * Slow down deletion - with the exception of blatant cases of the general criteria (excluding G4), an article or category shouldn't be speedy deleted within a couple weeks of creation; and with the exception of borderline cases of these criteria, it shouldn't be nominated for PROD or XFD during the same time period. Same should go for userspace pages created in the user's own space.
 * Fewer sockpuppetry blocks - with the exception of the major disruptive sockpuppeteers, we need to be extra careful about blocking "sockpuppets" - quite likely, many of the "sockpuppets" we block are actually meatpuppets who will diverge their edits ovwer time.
 * Cool it on VOA blocks - give a VOA indef block only the second time; the first time, give a 24 hour block.
 * Cool it on semi-protection - articles should only be semi-protected if absolutely necessary. Even PC is less BITEy than semi-protection.
 * עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The other big problem is visible two sections below. An editor getting a nasty personal attack in an edit summary because they posted the wrong image. I'm not sure how to get these kind of editors to stop being jerks. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incivility is a big problem, but it always was one; I think, though, that the decline in number of editors is more because of the hurdles the user must pass before becoming a significant editor here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it a problem?
Re: "The big question is, then, how do we reverse this?"... I'm going to play devil's advocate here... the question assumes that the decline in number of editors is a bad thing that needs to be "reversed"... but is it really? Before we tackle the big question of how to reverse the decline, I think we need to ask the bigger question: do we actually want to reverse the decline (and why)? Has anyone examined the possibility that having fewer editors actually results in a better encyclopedia? Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the decline in number of admins seems to be causing a significant backlogging of systems here. Secondly, I keep seeing WikiProjects where there is little activity on the main WikiPoject talk page - and this tends to make it difficult to find someone who can help with a specific on-wiki problem. I believe that both of these are caused by a decline in the number of users who we can keep around. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WikiProject X is a new funded initiative to increase the level of activity of wikiprojects, and I think anyone is welcome to involve themselves there. Having said that, I think that there has been a major shift in the nature of work which editors here have available to be involved in, because so many of the more central and easily developed articles are already in fairly good shape, leaving only the copyediting of some of them and the development of the more obscure and harder-to-source topics. While I acknowledge that losing productive editors is a bad thing, I am myself not sure that the loss of numbers really necessarily hurts the development and maintenance of content that severaly, although I do welcome efforts to make it easier for newer editors to find what articles are missing and also find ways to source them for inclusion here. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The forest instead of the tree
Here is what happened:
 * Orduin put Adam (band) up for speedy deletion only a couple of minutes after I created the article. 22:41, 6 January 2015
 * I posted comments on Administrators' noticeboard arguing against this deletion.22:58, 6 January 2015
 * ansh666 deleted the Administrators' noticeboard comments.23:04, 6 January 2015 This deletion is a violation of numerous rules and policies on wikipedia.
 * I restored the comments on Administrators' noticeboard.23:06, 6 January 2015
 * ansh666 put Adam (band) up for deletion.20:39, 9 January 2015‎

The bottom line is this:
 * There is little respect for new editors contributions. That was shown conclusively in ϢereSpielChequers new pages experiment: Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-09/New_pages_experiment
 * Many of the editors who are in leadership support the status quo: deleting new editors contributions.
 * Many of these editors have had a long history of colluding offline to delete editors contributions in major violation of WP:Sockpuppet policies.
 * Jimmy Wales is aware of this collusion and how these editors continue to break these rules. He condones it.
 * Anyone who questions the way things are run are blocked, sidelined, and their edits are deleted.
 * ϢereSpielChequers and the other editors of the new pages experiment caved to the popular view here that nothing was wrong - that new editors should continue to be treated like shit.
 * ϢereSpielChequers continues to cave here - whereas the established editors who treat new editors like total shit only become more hardlined.

'Concrete Solution':
 * I would like to work with several established editors here to create outside pressure on Jimmy Wales to either step down (preferably) or dramatically change the way that new editors are treated here. This includes:
 * A website showing new editor abuse - naming user names. Keeping a tally. Detailing exactly what established editors do to new editors here.
 * A petition on this new site asking Jimmy Wales to step down (best alternative)
 * A petition on this new site asking Jimmy Wales to help protect new users.
 * Forming a group of editors on wikipedia that can contact new editors when their edits are deleted, and let them know about the website.
 * This can be done with established groups such as WP:ARS - there is no need to recreate an entire new group.
 * This can be done with a twinkle script, etc.
 * Keeping in mind that based on past history, established editors will:
 * create sockpuppets
 * collude offline to try and do everything in their power to stop the status quo.
 * argue about what is being done on WP:ARS and other pages, and when editors who really want positive change argue that they should not participate in the discusson, they will quote how wikipedia is built on consensus ("consensus" means who is the most vested in getting their way, and who supports Jimmy Wale's current wikipedia)
 * argue about any minor change to twinkle, policy etc. Citing a variety of different reasons.
 * We need to be careful because ϢereSpielChequers and other established editors like him, in the spirit of "fairness" will probably cave to most of these demands.

750editsstrong (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's funny, from a sockpuppet like you. ansh666 18:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that this user has been violating WP:SOCK? The mere operating of several accounts isn't a violation ofpolicy unless it's designed to cheat either the software or other users to allow the operator to do things (s)he shouldn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note- 750editsstrong is now spamming this discussion on multiple noticeboards. Reyk  YO!  19:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And | warning me for daring to revert and advise him of WP:FORUMSHOP. This is heading into WP:POINT territory. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody cares about your pointless crusade against Jimmy Wales, 750edits/whatever usernames you've previously held. And honestly, I see no reason for anyone to take you seriously until you start communicating under your regular account. Because you very obviously are not a new editor. Resolute 19:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When you don't want to discuss the core issues, obfuscate the issue. One of the easiest ways is to attack the messenger.  Now we are no longer talking about Adam (band) or the way new editors are treated, now we are talking about WP:FORUMSHOP and sockpuppetry.  Nevermind the validity of the points made, about how wikipedia is harmed by how established editors treat new editors. I get blocked and the status quo continues, as it has for years....right? 750editsstrong (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're cloaking your personal agenda in a think of the children-type fallacy. I did't believe for a second that you were talking about what you claim to be. ansh666 19:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Obfuscate" is such a nice word. Very much appropriate here, though not in the way you think. When one works as hard to obfuscate their history, purpose and intentions as you have, 750, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Like I said. Come back with your regular account - presuming it isn't blocked/banned - and stop hiding behind charades, and you might get an actual discussion. Resolute 19:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 750, at the deletion discussion page, your only comment was "Hey assholes. If I show without a doubt that it is notable, will you step down as an administrator, and or stop editing for 1 month?" - sounds like attacking the messenger and obfuscating to me. It's also kinda funny how you warn that editors will create sock puppets to try to stop you. Oiyarbepsy (talk)
 * Comment First a caveat. This is an incredibly disorganized and disjointed discussion which is difficult at times to follow. So I am going to confine myself to a few broad observations.
 * It seems to me that the the thrust of the complaints is a bizarre melding of conspiracy theories with advocacy for radical inclusionism.
 * To the extent that an argument is being made that standards need to be sacrificed in favor of retaining new editors, I reject it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an online bulletin board.
 * In line with the previous point, anyone who is suggesting that articles without sources should be OK, or that they cannot be deleted on that basis, needs to stop editing right now, and read WP:V.
 * Re the argument that new articles are being tagged for deletion too quickly; I actually agree with that one. I have long argued that only CSD and maintenance tags should be placed on articles in the first 48hrs or so after their creation. Give editors a chance to work on their articles without being hounded right out the gate by the more deletion happy among us. (Yes there are some.)
 * BLP is one of the most important standards on the project. It is there to guarantee, as far as practicable, the integrity of the project and articles posted, while concurrently shielding the project from potential legal problems.


 * -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: My preceding comment was caught in an edit conflict but I agree with the hatting. If anyone wants to migrate my comment into the hat feel free. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. ansh666 21:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Culture of Kindness ...
Hi folks,

His this are frequent on English Wikipedia ?

A nice day for every one, Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Wiki ou eMail 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope it's not common. That is utterly an unacceptable way to speak to another editor and I've said so on their talk page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And got the same type of comment back in response. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's uncommon, but still way too common. If this happens (and it happens too much) call them on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to replay to this post Oiyarbepsy and Martijn Hoekstra. That's good to know than the lack of kindness is still not usual in English wikipedia projet. Best regards, Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Wiki ou eMail 12:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2014
Hello Wikipedians, on 17 January 2015 00:00 (UTC) began with the competition picture of the year in the Commons. Join the contest in the first selection of the best images Wikipedia every year. Do vote for the pictures you like better. If you have an account opened in the Commons to vote before January 1, 2015, and must have at least 75 changes to any wiki project. Good wikis. Uğurkent (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious request to participate in WMF poll
Not sure where else to query about this -- but since WMF employees do lurk here...

Wednesday I received an email from the Foundation that starts: "We are researchers from the Wikimedia Foundation and created this survey to help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand your current experience and inform future software development to address your needs with the editing interface. You are the experts, and we need to hear from you." I read it this morning & since it sounds both interesting & a good use of my time, I decide to take part.

Instructions are "Follow this link to the Survey". Only there is no link to any survey. Or any web page.

I checked the raw text of the email to see if the URL might be there. No luck. The text mentions one email address I could send a message to -- optoutresearch AT wikimedia.org (munged out of habit) -- only I don't want to unsubscribe. And the email came from noreply AT qemailserver.com -- which suggests that email account is not read by any human.

So what's the story? Another screwup by the Foundation, or just another phishing/spam exploit? (And if there is a real survey of Wikipedians, yes I would be interested in participating.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I received a similar email, well two to be precise. The first had the subject 'Thank you for participating!' and the second 'Participate in the future of Wikipedia and MediaWiki'. My emails had links to an official looking survey which I filled out. Sam Walton (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a real e-mail. From what I've read, there was some sort of software problem with the first, which is why so many people received a second (one apparently without visible HTML and with a working link).  Your second might have been caught by spam filters, since getting two slightly different copies of the same e-mail messages is typical of spam.
 * The central page is mw:Talk:Editing Tasks Survey if you'd like to talk to the researchers directly. I believe that User:ARipstra (WMF) is the lead, if you'd rather contact her directly.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the message reported at Village pump (technical)/Archive 133. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does appear to be the same, . I'm amazed I didn't see that thread; I thought I had skimmed thru all of the threads in the Village Pump yesterday then again today before posting. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers
The Arbitration Committee clerk team is currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors (adminship not needed) willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators.

Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and we will get back to you with some questions. If you have any questions you'd like an answer to before applying please feel free to ask on the clerks noticeboard or any current clerk.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Comments about the proposal of a women-only project on Wikipedia
I asked for answers to a question re whether or not there is a Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia. It is related to a proposal at the WMF IdeaLab for such a space. I asked that comments questions about the proposal (not about the "Risk" question be taken to the proposal's talk page. Apparently, some people want to comment about the proposal here, so here you go. (I will not re-discuss here, since most of what is brought up here is already on the proposal talk page.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is crazy, first off your all women project has not been approved yet and second you are raising the safety issue only as a way to make sure only women come to it if it is approved? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I don't think that's what Lightbreather means at all - I wouldn't pretend to speak for them, but to me it reads as "if this is an all-women space, by extension, membership indicates gender. Is publicly identifying as a woman a safe thing to do in this environment?" Ironholds (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No as "And that brings me to my question for the broader Wikipedia community" bit is used here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Knowledgekid87, I think you misunderstand my reason for asking this question. I am typing this on my phone and will add more when I'm back at my computer. Lightbreather (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would trans women be allowed in this space?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Lightbreather (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The best approach is gender-neutral. There's no female Wikipedian or male Wikipedian. We're Wikipedians, period. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds great in theory, but we all know the reality is completely different. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, in the end we are all here to build the encyclopedia and I find it insulting that some would think It differently (Other than vandals that is and people who clearly are WP:NOTHERE). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For women who did not wish to be identified as a woman on Wikipedia generally, LB's proposed safe haven could perhaps indicate that such women could join the haven under a different user name, provided they sent a private message to LB (or whoever) indicating what her normal name was on Wikipedia, and LB (or whoever) was reasonably satisfied that she was genuine, etc. This would not be illegal sockpuppeting as privacy and safety are among the allowed reasons for a second user name. I know this doesn't answer the question of whether it is safe for a woman to self-identify her gender on Wikipedia (nor what exactly 'safe' means in this context), but it just may make those questions somewhat less critical, at least in this specific context. However nothing can ever be 100% safe - for example a woman might unwittingly disclose her normal user name when indicating how she had been bullied and/or by whom, though in the safe haven there'd be a good chance that no misogynist bully noticed her slip-up (that risk might be further reduced if at least some conversations in the haven could not be seen by all Wikipedians, contrary to the current proposal, but perhaps I'm now digressing a bit too far off topic) Tlhslobus (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a good idea, to create a WikiProject where membership is restricted. I sincerely suggest that such a route be abandoned. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no objection with voluntarily self-restricted Wikispaces, so long as they are not used as venues to discuss editors who are not welcome there. My concern is that editors not permitted in the space will be talked about there, without having the ability to defend themselves in the same venue where the discussion is occurring. However, conversations can focus on subject matter rather than personal conflicts. bd2412  T 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

General background information
--Djembayz (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Without some sort of overall assessment (making allowances for confidentiality) from the people who work directly with the WMF Emergency Response System, it is uncertain how women's safety concerns specific to Wikipedia participation may diverge from women's general concerns regarding harassment and online safety. However, given that Pew found "40% of Internet users have personally experienced online harassment", and also that "the proportion of Internet users who took part in chats and discussion groups plunged from 28 percent in 2000 to 17 percent in 2005, entirely because of the exodus of women" it makes sense to set out some background information. Despite the fact that there is no constitutional right to harass women online in the US, as recently as October 2014, "the foundational principles of the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia," WP:TRIFECTA were based on WP:DBAD, an off-color reference to male anatomy.
 * We should also point out that the Wikimedia organization relies heavily on unpaid student interns, and as of March 2014, unpaid interns weren’t protected from sexual harassment on the job in the US, unless they were in NYC, DC, or Oregon. Thus it is not unsurprising that a request at the Gender Gap Task Force for a phone number to report online sexual harassment of volunteers has gone unanswered, nor is it surprising to see a preference expressed for attracting female students rather than senior citizens at a recent Metrics meeting.
 * In this context, given that the WP community has shown little capacity or interest in coming up with a workable enforcement mechanism for women's non-emergency safety concerns, it makes sense to share some basic resources for staying safe online and on Wikipedia, such as How to Edit Wikipedia: Lessons from a Female Contributor. It is worth noting that the new Crash Override site may offer some practical support learned the hard way through Gamergate, which caused three women to flee their homes. The FBI offers help to game developers suffering harassment, death threats, while CyberAngels has more general advice. Samples of best practices when reporting harassment are available. Computerworld suggests removing all personal info from the net, which will take you a few hours to do. APC is monitoring technology-related violence against women outside the US as well, so you may be able to assess concerns specific to your geographical location.

To actually respond to Djem and Light (I know, crazy, huh?), I don't get the impression that female editors are at risk of harassment from Wikipedia editors, except for vandals and spammers. Usually the worst of the worst that comes to Arbcom is POV pushing, foul language, and generally uncivil behavior. On-wiki harassment is not common and off-wiki harassment is quite rare. However, truly knowing the answer to this question would require input from people who access non-public information Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no way that a gender-exclusionary Wikipedia area should be approved, period. That's what this is about. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some would argue that Wikipedia is itself already rather gender-exclusionary, and that certain deliberate actions need be taken to counter this problem. Whether or not any one proposed action or another is better or not is not what I am saying here, but the problem is that Wikipedia systemicly excludes a gender already... -- Jayron 32</b> 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Djembayz that's good stuff, but it doesn't seem as if you answered Lightbreather's question for yourself. Or was all  that another way of suggesting that revealing ones gender is an unsafe thing to do if one is a female?   Carrite, on the other hand, is giving us a good demonstration as to why it might be desirable to have such a place.  I'll have to remember to add "period" to my list of words that mean "in my opinion." Carptrash (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Carptrash, are you being ironic or charitable or a bit of both? At least in my humble opinion, "In my opinion" usually suggests some degree of humility and awareness of one's own fallibility; "period" usually does not :) Tlhslobus (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "snarky" is the adjective I would use. Thanks for pinging me, I couldn't have lived without it. Carrite (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Djembayz, useful info, as often seems to come from you. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Kaffeeklatsch on English WP seems to be a prototype of what is envisioned. I gather from the invitations to this group it is meant to be a "safe haven" from men dominating the conversation. See here. Obviously it cannot not be a "safe haven" from any real or imagined "harm" beyond that. LB was referring specifically to the second and third of three requirements for being allowed in (all are required):
 * 1. You pledge that you are a woman.
 * 2. You place your user page in Category:Female Wikipedians.
 * 3. You set your international preference to be referred to as "she".
 * At least one potential member withdrew over that requirement. See here. Frankly, if self-identified women are allegedly at "risk of harm" on Wikipedia (or elsewhere on the internet), then they are at risk simply by being a member of a group which explicitly states that all its members are women. Having said that, the group's membership list is not as obvious to random editors who might intend "harm" as the information displayed on a user's own page. Thus, I don't see the point of these micro-managed requirements. Anyone who is so inclined can make up a female identity, set their preference to "she", formally categorize themselves as "female", and off they go to troll, dominate the conversation, or whatever other sins are implied to be exclusively male. The much bigger issue is that no group which explicitly bars other Wikipedians from joining or participating belongs in Wikipedia name space. Perhaps they can find a home at Meta, who might be willing to put up with the exclusionary ethos. However, given this, I highly doubt it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Many of you male co-editors must edit in an entire different WP Universe - I can spot typical male passive-aggressive behavior on a daily basis (including in my own edits). I don't get it why so many editors get their boxers in a bunch over a few women claiming a tiny little space for themselves. (It's hilarious to watch though)ChristopheT (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any self-declared group of editors can do as they wish. But such groups should be careful of creating schisms. GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hilarious and pathetic. What is happening in this thread is a small example of why a quiet corner for women is needed. Whenever there is any group of women trying to do anything to address the gender gap, some males with an excessive sense of insecurity ( or whatever ) ( at women doing anything to address the gender gap ) turn up, and the discussion gets railroaded, and it becomes impossible to do anything.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The proposal sets a dangerous precedent and is contrary to overarching WMF guidelines re: equality etc, as Voceditenore suggests. The trial Kaffeeklatsch thing should be sent to WP:MFD on those grounds. The issue of safety for women (however you define it) seems to ignore the obvious, ie: no-one can be guaranteed to be safe. In the context of Wikipedia, plenty of men face issues that are just the same as those faced by women. In my specific case, I've had Wikipedia-related safety issues so severe of late that WMF have been taking an interest and I had to move house etc on the advice of the UK Special Branch (anti-terrorist police). If you want ensure your safety then don't edit; if you want merely to reduce the risk, don't ghettoise yourself by identifying with anything and don't edit in areas that have even a potential for controversy. Alas, since even the Monty Hall problem and Dressing gown have been know to generate a phenomenal amount of heat, the "don't edit in areas" bit is itself problematic. Certainly, you'd need to steer clear of religious and ethnic topics, anything to do with sexuality and anything to do with public policy or politics. If you're worried about safety and want to continue here but have already fallen into the trap of identifying yourself then follow WP:CLEANSTART to the letter. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that if an editor is concerned in any way about their safety, ghetto-ising themselves and requiring others to do so is inherently counterproductive. Re Sitush's first point, at the moment the Kaffeeklatsch is in user space, where editors can pretty much exclude or remove the participation of anyone they want (apart from active block notices or editors reverting BLP or copyright violations). It would only become problematic from a policy point of view if it were to be taken out of user space and into Wikipedia space, i.e. WP:Kaffeeklatsch. Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I just want to say that this isn't about some overpowering males here denying women their own place on Wikipedia, this is about being fair to everyone. Can you imagine a whites only area of Wikipedia for example for editors who fear BBM? How about a Christian only area for those editors who fear suppression of religion? Im open to a women's wikiproject but I feel we should be working all together and not pit one side against the other as that only widens the gap. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

While in light of what happened in Gamergate (the actual controversy, not the article) and our need to attract and retain female editors I'm inclined to be in favor of this suggestion, at the same time I have to acknowledge that the community has historically been skeptical and, eventually, aggressively opposed to projects which have limited membership: see Esperanza which was formed for similarly benign purposes (and reading the MFD discussion which ended Esperanza is particularly enlightening in regard to the perceived faults which are relevant here) and to a similar but lesser extent, Association of Members' Advocates. If this goes forward, its members are going to have to relentlessly patrol and monitor its activities to avoid the mere appearance of canvassing, suspicious offline activities, or undue advocacy of a type which might not be seen by all — including the male hegemony here — as being in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I'm not sure that it can achieve its purpose with those limitations, but I'm willing to at least see it tried. (With one final reluctance: when something like this fails, the organizers/leaders have a tendency to become disheartened and leave the community. Since I'm afraid that this project may be moribund from birth, I'd hate to lose good female editors due to the failure of this project.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reserving judgement on whether this will make an acceptable use of user space, but I am wholeheartedly against banning editors of either gender from specific pages in WP space just because of their gender. Uncivil behavior is neither defined by nor limited to any specific gender.  Three of the most disruptive and uncivil editors I've ever encountered here self-identified as female.  I've collaborated successfully with men on articles related to female interests (romance novels and their authors), and collaborated with females on articles related to male interests (military).  My behavior is not "better" because I am female, just as my opinions are more important or more applicable because of my gender.  I choose to "judge" opinions of others - and would prefer to be judged myself - solely by how an editor upholds the WP Pillars and the content and quality of the articles they create.  Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, I would also like to point out that men and women can learn a great deal from each other. There are different ways of seeing the world, different ways of knowing things that both men and women bring to the table.  Integration is key to keep this process open. I find it strange that people who are supposed to be defending women, are proposing reactionary solutions that would undermine this learning process.  The real problem, IMO, isn't the men who interfere with women editing, but the men who don't stand up for their female colleagues.  I think we need a different way of looking at the problem, and that begins with actively supporting women when they say they are in trouble, not ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to this on so many different levels. First, I dispute there is any gender inequality.  I have not knowingly met another single Wikipedian in person.  Therefor, in my eyes you are all people. You are not male, or female, or undefined, or both, or neither, you're just people, aka human beings.  I've had people that say "what about people that identify or claim to be one gender or another", and to that I'll say I've met enough other people from online to know that people claim to be one gender or the other contrary to what they really are for various reasons including fear, needs for acceptance, confusion (there are apparently some gender confused people out there), or other reasons (we really don't need to list them all). Second, claiming there is in an inequality doesn't make it so.  Third, trying to make things equal is not done by creating a new restricted area that discriminates and biases against others.  Fourth, ... Well  this is just getting TL;DR, and I think my first three points should be enough to explain my position.  If you really want more, email me. —   01:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, I hope you realize that your contrarian stance supports Lightbreather's argument and need for a safe space. Did you think this all the way through before posting?  The only reason people like her make these proposals is because of comments like yours.  I'm against Lightbreather's proposal in principle, but you seem to be making her case for her.  The reason your comments are problematic is because they amount to an argument from ignorance. We are not disputing that a gender inequality exists, as such a dispute would be absurd.  Your statement that this proven inequality is only a claim and not substantiated is disproven across the board.  Please try to familiarize yourself with the most basic data on the subject before making such a silly statement. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of providing general background information:
 * m:Women and Wikimedia Survey 2011 is worth a read to get some idea of the actual lived experience that women editors have (That's a red link. It probably wouldn't  be a redlink if our core contributors included thousands of women editors, rather than just hundreds).  As is typical for lived experience, there is a significant diversity in responses, from women who had to quit due to real-world safety problems to women who say they've never had any significant problems.
 * If you want to read about why promoting a friendly space for everyone is worth the effort, then try something like this post from Curious Efficiency.
 * The point behind a minority space (yet another redlink) is so that the "minority" (however you're defining that) group's members
 * can talk about whatever interests them with other people who have similar experiences and interests, without
 * some privileged person (privileged on that one particular point, although not necessarily more privileged overall) changing the subject or telling them that they're wrong.
 * I don't think that it's difficult to imagine the problem that minority spaces are trying to solve. Imagine that you've gone to a real-world general gathering place.  You really want to talk to someone about an issue you're having at Wikipedia.  You need some advice about a sensitive, persistent vandalism problem.  There are 100 people in the room, of whatever ages and races and education and interests are common for your neighborhood.  The odds are that none of them are interested in or knowledgeable about your issue.  How are you going to find the one other Wikipedia editor in that large group?  And if you do manage to find one, then how do you ensure that you can have a long, focused talk on your issue?  How do you keep the guy next to you from interrupting your conversation to talk about what interests him instead?  Or from telling you that your problem isn't nearly as important as his problem, which is with Reddit?  Or from telling you that you're wrong, that page doesn't have a problem with vandalism, and he can prove it because he just read it on his mobile device, and there's not only no vandalism on the page, but also a special note at the top saying that it cannot be edited except by admins?
 * The way that we do this in the real world... is that we go to Wikipedia-specific spaces to talk about these things, where only actual editors are welcome. And the proposal here is that a sub-group of "us" would like to have a group-specific space to talk about their stuff.  It's not an unreasonable or even surprising response.
 * In case anyone's curious, I am unlikely to participate in any program like this. I've periodically tried to deal with some of the results of our systemic bias problem by working on "feminine" articles like Breast cancer awareness and Preschool education, but I've already got more on my watchlist than I can read.  I'm also not convinced that an on-wiki approach is likely to be effective; if it were possible, a closed, off-wiki discussion forum that used your on-wiki password (via OAuth) would probably be better.  Privacy seems to make minority spaces more functional, as it reduces the threat of retaliation.  I offer the above information in the hope that the proposal will be better understood, not in an effort to change anyone's mind about it.  I can entirely understand the principled objection to having an on-wiki page that is, in effect, permanently full-protected against ~90% of editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Closed, and off wiki? What could go wrong? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What could go wrong? Lots and lots and lots of things.  (Probably some of them would, too; one need only look as far as the closed, off-wiki IRC channel for admins to be convinced of that.)  However, a closed, off-wiki forum is still probably the tool most suited to the stated goals.
 * (On the other hand, several other Wikipedias do most of their coordination off-wiki, e.g., on Facebook, and it seems to work for them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So you want to bring the divisions from the real world in here, where you cannot be sure anyone is who they say they are because nearly all of us are anonymous? And you think other groups won't use it as a precedent to split off on their own terms? Good luck with making that work. Britmax (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake to think Wikipedia didn't inherit the divisions of the real world. Editors bring their cultural baggage with them, like first time tourists who don't know how to pack for a weekend trip. It's the rare idealist who edits here with just the shirt on their back, shorts, and flip-flops.  That's the kind of editor we should encourage, but the concept is so foreign to most people that when presented with this condition, they run away screaming in horror.  Most editors can't imagine separating their identity from their culture, religion, education, nationality, etc.  They come here thinking Wikipedia is just another territory to colonize. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sad but probably true. Britmax (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Stupid errors throughout Wikipedia
Today I was using Wikipedia and noticed typographical errors existing on several article pages, including a category that does not exist and blank space before an article introduction. I have fixed what I can, but I have a feeling that minor issues such as these are widespread and may be occurring throughout Wikipedia. This spoils my experience, and I do not intend to continue using Wikipedia until I find that such problems are fully resolved. I really enjoy Wikipedia, so I hope that in the future, editors will see to it that such errors are fixed as soon as they are noticed. Thank you. 104.207.136.27 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can help in fixing these errors. You can help by editing wikipedia. Please WP:BEBOLD and also consider creating an account to keep track of your edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress states "Wikipedia is constantly being improved and expanded, and it will never be finished." For any error you can't fix on your own, please feel free to post a note in the article talk page so editors can fix it.  For example, if you found an error in the article on Barack Obama that you couldn't fix, please drop a note on Talk:Barack Obama.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OTOH, the WMF could spend some of their cash on a fleet of bots that could fix these errors. I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the IP and I think more can be done to improve the user experience. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that fixing typographical errors usually fall under Bots/Frequently denied bots. If you have any specific ideas for bots, please feel free to share at Bot requests.  GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only problem is, the issue under discussion does not fall under that category. Yes, the user used the word "typographical", but really, please read for comprehension.  The user described seeing "a category that does not exist" and a "blank space before an article introduction".  I seem to recall that when a category used to get deleted, a bot would remove it, and in the past, nonexistent categories could be removed by a bot.  Am I wrong?  More to the point, I run into errors like this every day, and I agree with the IP, it makes Wikipedia look very bad.  One of the most common is the kind introduced by iOS, consisting of extra periods in the wrong place, such as at the end of a citation, even when the citation follows punctuation.  Another error I see all the time involves double punctuation after a quote, such as punctuation within the quote and one outside.  You're telling me that such errors can't be removed by a bot?  Dilbert and Kafka are smiling proudly. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry - "Fully automatic spell-checking bots" are frequently denied, but that doesn't cover the specific cases you and the IP mentioned. My suggestion for posting at Bot requests (with examples) would be appropriate for your suggestions.  GoingBatty (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about the "fleet of bots". However, I believe that I can report, without fear of contradiction, that spellcheck will not be added to the editing tools.  From the sounds of it, this appears to be an "over my dead body" issue for at least one of the staffers, and for a good reason:  there are too many languages and too many variant spellings to support, and every computer already comes with spell-check system pre-installed that is better than what the WMF could realistically create.
 * In terms of solving the actual problem, I understand that WP:AWB and WP:WikiProject Check Wikipedia already do a good deal of this work. This human-reviewed approach sounds more appropriate to me than a fleet of bots.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing. Nobody, including the IP and myself, has mentioned anything remotely having to do with or requiring spellcheck. Why is there such a fundamental problem understanding what is being said here? Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GoingBatty certainly mentioned spellcheck, and neither you nor the OP excluded the predominant category of typographical errors from consideration. Spell check software is the main (NB:  not "only") method of addressing typos.  Additionally, if you look at the IPs three edits before this comment, you will see:
 * the removal of a sourced sentence (i.e., an edit that cannot be done automatically, and in the case of the slur in the edit summary, something that shouldn't be done manually, either);
 * the removal of a legitimate but red-linked/never created and currently unused category (i.e., exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be removed automatically, because the best response is usually creating the category); and
 * the removal of an extra blank line in between the infobox at the lead sentence (introduced when an image was moved to a different section).
 * Only one of these three edits could even be considered a typographical error. (I would not be surprised if graphic designers considered it a layout error rather than a typographical one.)
 * It may interest you to know that there are already bots that clean up some kinds of typos; in fact, one of the articles that the OP edited had been edited by exactly such a bot. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely hope this was trolling on 104.207's part. If not, I'm sorry to say that wikipedia will never be free of the typographical and other errors that have so distressed 104.207, and he or she would be very well advised to give us a very wide berth indeed. I for one am desolate that my hundreds or thousands of hours of unpaid work has not yielded a product acceptable to 104.207, and I certainly resolve to try harder in future. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also wonder about the possibility of trolling here. All documentation, either in print or online, has minor, stupid errors. (Often on the level of confusing there/their/they're, sticking a single apostrophe into plurals (e.g. "This document has 30 R's"), printing "form" for "from", missing spaces, etc. And misspelling "etc.") I find it a feature in Wikipedia that anyone can fix these. On other places, there is often no way to correct trivial mistakes like these -- or to do so requires dealing with a tedious process. (Working at one company, I found that to fix a trivial typo in the man page for their product, one had to file a bug report, have it triaged as important enough to get it fixed in the next release, then validate not only that the typo was corrected but that the correction did not introduce any new bugs. Sigh.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice way to AGF, guys. No wonder I try to avoid this board. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of calling the IP a troll, you could instead post a welcoming message to their talk page encourage them to edit and fix these issues, as three editors who assume good faith actually did. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice way to AGF yourself, Viriditas. I have assumed good faith. I take the user at their word that minor typographical & other errors so distress them that they will not use the encyclopedia. I do not wish them to be distressed. I suggest they should go away and not be distressed. I don't discount the possibility that they're trolling, and indeed hope that they are, because I find their complaint ridiculous and insulting and nonsensical. Oiyarbepsy: as you note, editors had already taken the sofixit route, so my following it would have added nothing to the conversation. I gain the impression that you do not think that robust criticism shoud be met with a robust response. Well. There you go. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's recap: a legitimate comment about errors disrupting the user experience was made by an IP. In response, you assume bad faith, alleged the IP was trolling (when there was no visible sign of any kind of problematic behavior at all) and went on to make a snarky, sarcastic, unhelpful comment in reply.  You were then taken to task for your bad attitude and inability to assume good faith by two users, myself and  Oiyarbepsy.  Instead of recognizing your mistake, you replied by compounding your error, once again insulting the IP and disrespecting their input.  Are you getting it yet, or do you need to have it explained again? Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument fails, for me, with its initial premise. I disagree that it is a legitimate comment, based on its phrasing, and so treat it accordingly. You're free to disagree with me and continue to fulminate if you wish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, you assume bad faith based on your poor reading comprehension and biased interpretation of the phrasing--a perception that exists only in your head, not in external reality. The entire point of assuming good faith is to prevent this perception from coloring your reaction.  My argument not only succeeds, you yourself have proven it for me. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the edits in question . I'm hardly going to loose sleep over such issues. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes: education, alma mater, & degrees...
This is a whole bunch of questions:
 * Do degrees belong in Infoboxes?
 * Are the alma mater and education parameters interchangeable?

Degrees-achieved have been added (by possibly one editor contributions, contributions) to articles' Infoboxes, including Infobox:Judge, Infobox:Vice President, and Infobox:Officeholder. The degrees-achieved have then been removed with edit summaries saying something along the lines of "degrees and fields of study go in the |education= field". I can't find a guideline stating that such is the case but Wikipedia is a big place so maybe I've missed something. Would appreciate some guidance on this issue, not sure what the procedure should be going forward.

If this is in the wrong place, sorry, I couldn't figure out where I should post this query - please post here where it should go. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, the only "guideline" about what goes where in any template (including all infoboxes) is the template's own documentation. If editors are happier with a vaguer/broader/more flexible education, or if they prefer separate lines for every little detail, then that's fine.  The interested people just need to talk it over and write down their decision.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my funding proposal to work with UNESCO
Hi all

I’m looking for feedback and endorsement for my Wikimedia Foundation PEG grant to be Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO. I’d very much appreciate if you would have a look, the most relevant objectives to Wikipedia are:


 * 1. Train UNESCO and its partner organisations to contribute to Wikimedia projects: Provide UNESCO and its partners with the skills, tools, resources and connections to contribute to Wikimedia projects in a meaningful, measurable and sustainable way. To integrate into the Wikimedia community both online and by matching them with local Wikimedia organisations and volunteers for in person support and collaboration. The project will create and improve content receiving 100,000,000 views per year on Wikimedia projects, educate 1000 people in over 200 organisations to learn more about Wikimedia projects. This will include 500 newly registered users trained to contribute to Wikimedia projects and 500 articles formally reviewed by experts.


 * 2. Make content from the archives of UNESCO and its partners available on Wikimedia projects: This project will facilitate the upload of 30,000 images, audio files, videos, data and other content to Wikimedia projects from UNESCO archives (24,000 images), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and other sources including 10 organisations changing their content license to be Wikimedia compatible, a completed pilot project is outlined in the Goal section.

I ran a pilot project that resulted in the images found in the Wikimedia Commons category Images from the archive of UNESCO, here are a few examples: <Gallery mode=packed heights=180px> File:The Soda volcano, Oromia, Ethiopia.jpg|The Soda volcano, Oromia, Ethiopia. File:Rubbles of the cathedral after the earthquake that hit the Capital Port au Prince just before 5 pm on 12 January 2010.jpg|Rubble of the cathedral after the earthquake that hit the Capital Port au Prince just before 5 pm on 12 January 2010. File:Young monk, wearing a special costume, Desert road in China, July-August 1991, Sikkim, India.jpg|Young monk, wearing a special costume, July-August 1991, Sikkim, India. File:Sabha,6, getting ready to walk to school from her house on the borders eastern Gaza strip, where she and her family are still living in tents.jpg|Sabha, 6, getting ready to walk to school from her house on the borders eastern Gaza strip, where she and her family are still living in tents. File:Mohana fishermen hunters use lures from real birds to catch more birds.jpg|Not far from Mohenjo-Daro (or Mohenjodaro) - These Mohana fishermen/hunters use lures from real birds to catch more birds. They will either eat them or sell them. Mohenjodaro, Pakistan. File:Priest of rock-Hewn Churches of Lalibela, a high place of Ethiopian Christianity, still today a place of pilmigrage and devotion..jpg|Priest of rock-Hewn Churches of Lalibela, a high place of Ethiopian Christianity, still today a place of pilmigrage and devotion.

If you think this is a worthwhile project please click this link and then click the endorse button.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disgruntled user
The following message was left on my user talk page. The editor wished for it to be "forwarded" and since this is the closest thing we have to an open forum about general wiki issues, I'm copying it here. (The user left it for me, I suspect, because I had interacted with him as the current chairperson of the Mediation Committee.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please close this thread. This problem has been handled already at the user talk page (but was likely deleted).  You may find the discussion in the page history. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just came across the "I give up" comment at the user talk page for TransporterMan. Then I noticed your reaction, "This problem has been handled already...".  I can't tell whether you intended your comment to be humorous, but it is clear that the problem described by "I Give Up" is far worse, and far more extensive, than to merely claim "This problem has been handled already...".  I am reminded of Wizard of Oz's "Pay no attention to the many behind the curtain!!!".   Clearly, the problem hasn't been handled.   Frysay (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I Give Up
READ ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH POLITICAL BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA: http://wikibias.blogspot.com

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIKIPEDIA: I have a number of recommendations for Wikipedia, if they desire to be a respected and neutral information resource: First, you need to clearly understand how socio-politically monolithic your editors really are. You can start by tracking the selection of your userboxes by your editors. I believe that this simple action will enable you to gain a better understanding of the philosophy of your demographic (it might also help to have one or two pro-business/entrepreneur userboxes too). Second, you must accept and address the fact that the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative. Third, the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed. It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. It also snuffs-out alternative or contrary perspectives and it leads to frustration, vandalism, and constant edit-warring. Ultimately, those with a different world-view are perniciously rejected ... and ejected (such as my case)... from the process, which further solidifies your problematic singular mindset. Fourth, the mediation process, overlaid by your consensus requirements, is completely useless and should either be modified or removed. Mediation Rule: Prerequisite #5 (Acceptance by a majority of parties) makes it practically impossible for alternative input to survive if challenged editors can shut down mediation by simply opting out of the process, with the net result being that their 'defended' work still stands. Considering this, why would any editor ever accept mediation. Fifth, all of the above four issues revolve around the same problem ... the vast majority of your editors are significantly skewed to the left ... philosophically, socially, and politically. One of the stated goals of Wikipedia is to be 'neutral' and impartial in the presentation of its subject-matter, yet how can this be achieved if its editorship composition, promoted by its consensus and mediation practices, protects a singular world-view? If it truly believes in those stated goals, Wikipedia must make a proactive decision to engage, involve (and at times protect) a broader spectrum of editors. Wikipedia needs to actively facilitate their input, particularly when it comes to contentious topics. This can be achieved by involving Wikipedia administrators (and/or senior editor volunteers) who are sensitive to the issue and more representative of a broader perspective. Their involvement could provide balance in conflict situations such as mine. The worst feeling in the world as a Wiki-editor is fighting an onslaught of editors who do not share your opinion, while those who support you have to anonymously cower in the dark and helplessly watch you take the beating from a distance out of fear of similar intimidation or retribution.

Please forward ... if anyone at Wiki gives a darn.

Wikipedia Editor: Tolinjr--Tolinjr (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia
I recently proposed a women-only space at the WMF IdeaLab. Support has been much better than I expected, but there has also been a lot of opposition.

One problem that has presented itself is how to ensure, as much as is possible, that editors who join the group are women. And that brings me to my question for the broader Wikipedia community:

Is it unsafe for a woman to set her user profile "Internationalisation" preference to "She edits wiki pages" or to add her username to Category:Female Wikipedians?

Or put another way: Do women who "out" themselves as women on Wikipedia using either of the two options mentioned increase their risk for physical or psychological danger on- or off-wiki?

I would very much appreciate this discussion to stay on this question only, and that any other questions or concerns about the proposal be taken to its talk page.

Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Before anyone can answer this question, you will have to define what you (or the people who have asked this question of you) mean by "safe". That word can encompass everything from "safe from being literally murdered" to "safe from psychological trauma" to "safe from cyberbullying" to "safe from criticism", and I would venture that the answer to your question will be entirely dependent on which you're you asking about. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do women who "out" themselves as women on Wikipedia using either of the two options mentioned increase their risk for physical or psychological danger on- or off-wiki? Lightbreather (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get this. What do you mean by "unsafe"? Safe from physical attacks? Safe from uncivil remarks? A cost benefit analysis would determine that the negative impacts of setting your user preference as "she edits" would be more than the positive impacts of getting to join the women only project? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Safe" only means a corner where women can discuss things with other women without getting the discussion overrun by men due to Wikipedia's predominantly male demographics.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Its not practical as anyone can claim to be anyone online, a woman, trans-gender, a child, you name it. Thinking over the question yes I feel it is safe for a woman to identify herself on Wikipedia as so but should not be forced to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the positive aspects of creating a "safe" space for women here would not be outweighed by possible unsafety elsewhere. However I think we can all agree that no one can guarantee anyone safety anywhere.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are saying that nobody should reveal their gender simply to join that group because the benefits of joining the group would be outweighed by problems caused by revealing their gender, I could probably agree. However, LB seems to be concerned with people falsely claiming to be women to join that group. I think she should just make it plain that admission to that group is not automatic if someone claims to be a woman. That entry to the group can be denied without specifying any reason.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Then how are these members cherry picked who do want to join? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would propose that `safe' in this case be taken as `safe from discrimination on the basis of her (perceived) gender'. So, `do you think you are more likely to get argued against because you are a woman?' would be included. -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC) :)

It seems like a lot of editors think you're talking about who can be in the women's group, which was not my impression at all. Could you please clarify your intent on this conversation? Are all the comments above off-topic? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Some are, as were many that followed your question. I broke those into a separate discussion. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was addressing your question in my reply which has now been hived off to another section. So here's the short answer: The more information you reveal about yourself on Wikipedia (and on the internet in general), the less "safe" you are. That includes, but is not limited to, your gender. Simply signing on to an explicitly women-only project reveals your gender, but at least it's currently in a relatively obscure place. Requiring anyone who participates to additionally reveal their gender on their user page and add themselves to Category:Female Wikipedians, increases the risk a lot more. My main point is/was: Why put your members in that position, when it offers absolutely no additional protection from people posing as women with the intent to deceive? If you want your members to be as safe as possible, my advice would be to drop requirements 2 and 3 and add WP:NOINDEX to the Kaffeeklatsch pages. Voceditenore (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Voceditenore. I tried to sort out the answers. Sorry I missed yours. Lightbreather (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you missed mine, too. That's what happens when you do majoring refactoring, as you did from here yesterday. I'm not even sure why you bothered. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You are at equal risk, in my opinion. Everyone here can get enemies and threats. The more you reveal, the more specific the type of threat. The severity is not much different. Males get called paedophiles, and females get rape threats. Both are subject to death threats. These slanders and threats can easily cross into the real world - to work, friends, and home. Most stalkers who do these threats get banned and continue the threats anyway, however most editors are not like this. Most will not care about your gender nor threaten you. Any of the general gender-neutral advice about revealing identity would be relevant here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You believe that Wikipedia editors who select the user preference "He edits," or who add their username to Category:Male Wikipedians, are taking an equal risk, physically and psychologically, to those who select the user preference "She edits," or who adds their username to Category:Female Wikipedians?


 * My personal experience and observation, here on Wikipedia and on other online forums, are pretty similar to what this Pew Research report on online harassment shows:




 * However, not every forum is the same, so that is part of why I asked this question - to see how this community answers it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you'll see much discrimination in terms of those things. I expect there will be some gender difference in who takes psychological offence to things like death threats and threats to their family, but the vandals and trolls don't really discriminate in their targets. This study summary seems to suggest males receive more harassment outside social media, though females take more offence. I'm not sure what you're trying to avoid though. Death threats from trolls, or arguments from males? You should expect both whatever. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Bear with me, this comment starts out on a bit of a dark note. I think that the risk from identifying oneself as female in this space (i.e. Wikipedia) is no greater or less than the risk from identifying oneself as female in any online space (i.e. anywhere else on the internet, generally). Any person can be a user here by default and can be as anonymous as they want to be; it is only users who have proven themselves unsuitable members of the community who have been expelled from it. The nature of this community is that some users will occasionally disagree with other users, and there are unfortunately users among us who will use whatever information they can find to try to "win" a dispute by intimidating their "opponent" into submission. This is forbidden by policy and users who do these things are swiftly ejected, but we can't control what people do off-wiki. We know that there are (hopefully rarely) individuals whose personal beliefs or even mental illnesses make them dangerous in real life to people whose identities are available online, and I do believe that females are more exposed to this sort of risk (though I wish it weren't so). I believe that the assessment of that risk is up to the individual. But I do think that you can create a "safe" space on Wikipedia, even without requiring a user to reveal their gender to join, if you are quick to expel users who are disruptive, and perhaps you can recruit some vigilant administrators to assist in that effort. It is also possible to use WP:EMERGENCY to contact law enforcement if there appears to be an off-wiki threat. I do think that the benefits of that safe space outweigh the risks of being part of it, and I also think that the Wikipedia community will be better for your effort. Ivanvector (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to identify as female that's fine, but of course on Wikipedia anyone can do that - and quite rightly too I think. Personally I can't care less what people are that way but I've absolutely no problem with a project for people who identify that way for discussion about common issues with Wikipedia. I am sorry there are creeps around the place, I believe a higher standard of civility on Wikipedia would be helpful to the project - louts turn away good editors but the admins are too slow on banning people for persistent incivility. Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there is the potential for a catch-22 situation here. Creating a "safe", women only project for female editors to talk among themselves may actually make things less "safe" outside of that project page... anyone posting to the project page would be "outed" as being female, simply by the fact that they posted at the project page.   If there is a need for such a forum, the best solution would be to hold it off site. Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Separate but equal...seems like a good plan right? I mean really how can this not help the disparity in gender? The genius of ending gender inequalitiy is to make a women only website. yes it all seems so clear now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh god, similar to this Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, 1953, god please no.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 20:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I worry about the editor who self-identifies as a woman and goes on to describe herself as a teenager and/or in high school. We can't bar participation for those who are under 18 years of age, but we would need to be mindful that they are juveniles. If they willingly disclose their gender, I hope they don't disclose their age, locale, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedia may not be a particularly hostile place for women per se, (It's a place that can be quite hostile to anyone at times, regardless of gender) but how we self-identify on wikipedia is visible to the rest of the world.  It can and DOES get commented upon outside of wikipedia at sites such as wikipediocracy (which "outs" people on a regular basis) and other sites that I will not glorify by naming here. Those of us who are more outspoken are more at risk. For a single comment about a single image on a single article, my username is now on an "enemies" list at a gamergate forum, which really gave me pause. Sure as shit I'm NOT going to make it easy for people to harass me by revealing my real name or my gender.  Sometimes I fret that I have disclosed too much just by saying I's mover 50 and from Montana.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The new "canned edit summary" edit tag and proliferation of tags in general
There's been a minor proliferation of edit tags lately and I feel that it's kind of getting out of hand. We discussed recently about the two "mobile app edit" and "mobile edit" tags which almost always redundantly appear together, and now there's a new "canned edit summary" tag, which triggers via edit summaries like typo and fixed grammar. My watchlist is now seriously dense, with walls of edit tags. The useful stuff I like to scan (size of edit, actual edit summary) is quickly getting dwarfed by the stuff that is not useful at all, such as the aforementioned tags. I think it's weird that some visual changes to the watchlist, like the whole blue/green dot thing a while ago, gets tons of discussion and debate while many edit tags, which demonstrably decrease the readability of my watchlist without providing any added value, are implemented without discussion and with no transparency for most editors. (Yes, I understand why transparency is bad in some cases... but must I pass RfA just to discuss what goes into my watchlist?)

Why was the "canned edit summary" tag implemented, and what problem is it supposed to solve? Is it to help look out for sneaky vandalism? Believe me, anyone who watches vandalism for more than a week figures out the very small set of canned edit summaries used for sneaky vandalism and doesn't need an edit tag to point them out. And anyone who hasn't watched vandalism for more than a week wouldn't understand what the edit tag is telling them anyway.

This is not to say that edit tags aren't useful. Some are tremendously useful. Others are not, and lately those are the ones that appear with irritating frequency. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I kind of like it, with my massive watchlist. When "fixed typo" appears beside a >5 character edit you can bet I'll be looking at that first. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My watchlist is massive as well, but let's not get into a measuring contest. I can just as easily spot the >5 character/"typo" edit summary together without a tag pointing it out. Maybe that's the tl;dr of my point: most other edit tags tell me stuff I can't see just by looking at the watchlist, while this one tells me what I can already plainly see. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tags are used so that if something bad happens, you can track down the piece of software that caused the problem. Pretty much all software that edits pages and could be considered experimental is going to have tags associated with the edits.  If you don't like them, then I believe that there's a CSS trick to turn them all off.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, and that accounts for some of the tags, like the VE edit tag. But I'm not sure why I (as someone who is not particularly looking out for VE edits) should see it all the time. And I'd prefer to have a way to selectively remove certain tags rather than turn them all off, because as I mentioned above, some are very useful, like "repeated character". But I can see that I'm not exactly attracting a crowd of supporters here so I may just have to grumble to myself. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if you're not familiar, the mobile app, after making an edit, will then ask how you changed the page, and it gives several default options, since typing on mobile is a hassle. "Canned edit summary" is what results when a user chooses one of these options. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "canned" is  negative in tone -- perhaps change to "prebuilt" ?  DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "default" maybe? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Illiteracy in Wikipedia?
People keep using "notability" in terms of removing portion of content. Shouldn't people use "prevalence" or "important" instead? Also, in titling discussions, they discussed whatever follows the sources without knowing how to connect to general readers. They vote for one title that doesn't fit readers' needs instead of another title that does. Why is that? --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you just asked two unrelated questions, I created two subsections below to discuss them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word notability
"Notability" is a noun (so is "prevalance"), while "notable" is an adjective (so is "important"). "Notability" may be used more frequently when people are thinking about Wikipedia's notability guideline. While it would be great if everyone used the correct form of speech in every discussion and edit summary, I believe that civility and proper application of the guideline are more important. GoingBatty (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Should WP:NPOV be used instead of WP:N? --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on the reason for the removal of text - is the text not neutral, or is it not notable? GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that WP:UNDUE? WP:N mentions only article topics, not content. --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be removal of undue coverage of a minority view, or simply removing trivial information. Hard to say without examples.  GoingBatty (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Without remembering which article, I can't figure out how "notable" is used in terms of removing one portion. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Prevalance" has little meaning when discussing Wikipedia's concept of notability. Appearing in many directory-type websites does not convey notability. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, George is right. Editors really ought to say that they're removing unimportant (to that article) material because it's WP:UNDUE (for that article), rather than saying that it is non-notable.  If, a dozen years ago, some Wikipedians hadn't decided to use the common English word notable to mean "qualifies for an article on the English Wikipedia", then we wouldn't have this problem.  But they did, and so we'll have this problem, probably forever.  The most we can hope for is that a few people will read this discussion and try to remember to say "UNDUE" next time, rather than confusing people (especially new editors) by saying "notable" when they mean something other than whether the subject qualifies for a separate article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability does occasionally come up: one of the articles on my watchlist is List of JavaScript libraries and the main thing I end up doing is removing red links, non-links and external links. It's a list of links to articles so if there's no article there's no entry which effectively means if it's not notable there's no entry. It's not strictly the criteria as there could be notable JS libraries which haven't had articles written, and non-notable ones with articles. but it's useful shorthand in e.g. an edit summary for "I'm removing this as there's no article, but if you think there should be one, i.e. if you think the topic is notable, first create the article then add a link". Disambiguation pages are another case where entries should exist for notable topics, and I'm sure there are others.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Taking out "Amanda's favorite color is blue" because it's "not notable" is both grammatically correct and less jargony than "UNDUE". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do people link to WP:Notability guideline, which refers to only topics, whenever they say "notable" in reference to removing content? George Ho (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they shouldn't do that. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Titles that don't meet readers needs
Could you please provide some examples? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't think any. Well, "Republic of China" was proposed to replace Taiwan; "People's Republic of China", China. Many readers prefer "Taiwan" and "China" fortunately. George Ho (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily that people prefer either, it's that the consensus was (and so still is until it changes) for those titles. You write "fortunately" so presumably you agree with consensus and the outcomes of those discussions. So I don't see what the problem is.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 06:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll explain. Connection between a voter and an average reader is important. Many people do not see it nowadays, to me. Even majority can support or oppose based on their own perspectives, not how general reader would react. --George Ho (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see it. The China discussion is here: Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26. A long read but if you skip to e.g. the summary at the top of the Requested move August 2011 you'll see it's not about personal preference but editors judgement of policy, in particular WP:COMMONNAME, resulting in the name that best serves readers as the common, or most usual and best recognised, name.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 15:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you bring up ROC and PRC for "titles meeting reader's needs". Most of our readers don't have strong opinions about the imaginary dispute the two countries have (there's been no war or demands, just the little official maps they prepare). The vast majority of our readers aren't aware that both countries claim the other's territory. People see news reports, history books, product labels and everything else that say "Taiwan" and "China". "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" are political statements, not accurately descriptive names. Republic of China is really "Taiwan", so the official political-statement name is confusing to most of our readers, and doesn't serve their needs. Taiwan and China are titles that do. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, bad example. I can't bring up "Madonna (entertainer)" either because many readers prefer parenthetical disambiguation to her surname, "Ciconne". I was uncertain about Burma vs. Myanmar without realizing the history of the naming. Then I realized that "Burma" is most suitable, especially by history and by consensus. This leaves me no examples left. I'm now thinking about bringing up Connie Mak Kit-man, but the situation is complex due to many people's lack of awareness of this marginally-notable person. So I'll give you examples when I give you one. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with the ROC and PRC isn't that they are political. I mean they're no more political than the United Kingdom, which manages to combine both an assertion of union won through conquest and the monarchy which drove the conquest. Yet that's the name of the country. One might even offer the Soviet Union as an example, an even more nakedly political name for a 'country' which fell apart as soon as its people were able to reassert the nationality of their own states. They are formally the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China, but they are commonly known as Taiwan and China. Both of those are political in their own way too. But they are the common names.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I found another example, Pink (singer) vs "P!nk". I ended up typing "P!ink" instead; at least I corrected myself once. Anyway, how does "P!ink"/"P!nk" help readers more than "Pink (singer)"? --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My definition of meeting readers' needs is to quickly get them to the article they're looking for. In the example of this famous singer:
 * Searching for "P!nk" and clicking will automatically redirect you to the Pink (singer) article - done!
 * Searching for "Pink" will bring up a list of options, including Pink (singer), which you could click and be done
 * Searching for "Pink" and clicking will take you to Pink (the color), which has a link at the top to take you to Pink (singer) - done!
 * Could you please be specific as to what you think would be better? GoingBatty (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I went neutral. Using a keyboard is a pain. I commented that "P!nk" must be exactly memorized; I typed "Pi1nk" or "P!ink" or "PI!ink" instead. I was instructed to type quickly and skillfully without looking at the keyboard, making "P!nk" harder to type. George Ho (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see what the problem is either. Before you posted it here I was unaware that she went by the designation "P!ink". So if I wanted to find her article I would have typed "Pink"; and as noted above that would get me to her article two ways; via the search box where the link appears or if I go straight to Pink it's linked at the top of the page. What more is needed or would help?-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 04:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to break this to you, but you typed "P!ink". Actually, you have proven that "P!nk" is not easy to be accurately typed. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I copied the wrong one then. But as noted I would not have used it anyway. Those who use it and prefer it presumably know it. Yes it's harder to type: you should write her a letter complaining. Those who don't know it will just use "Pink" and get there as quickly or almost as quickly. Again, what is wrong with that, and what could we do to fix it?-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 05:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people don't want to type in "(singer)" and felt that the article title must be changed to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. "Pink (singer)" is longer but easier to type exactly; "P!ink" makes "P!nk", shorter but harder, irritating to readers. --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. So some people want it moved. So they can put in move request. Which I see has already happened and is proceeding normally without any problems. I suggest you raise your concerns in that move discussion as the appropriate place to address them.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Done so. Now let's get back to general issue without examples please. --George Ho (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you were asked for examples as the original question was unclear without them. Now we seem to have dealt with the examples, which have arrived at or seem to be arriving it the best result via requested moves, so aren't obviously problematic. Can you restate the problem without reference to any examples?-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 21:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I'm unsure of whether illiteracy is related to article titles anymore. As said before, using keyboards is a main issue that should have been addressed in policies and guidelines. Perhaps I'll address it elsewhere, like in Idea lab. Also, memorization of names is another issue. Redirects are easy, but if I type in redirected names more than a current name, I'd be prompted into proposing a name change. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

More prominent promotion of meetups
I help to organise meetups of Wikimedians in the north of England. It tends to be the usual group of people who attend – mostly experienced Wikimedians, and that's all well and good, but one of the aims of the meetups is to raise awareness of Wikipedia and to get new or unconfident editors to contribute more. It is rare for new or beginner editors to attend, and I think one of the reasons for this is that they just don't know about the events. However, they're a key target audience. The events are advertised on Watchlist pages with a geonotice, but of course if you rarely look at your Watchlist, or if you don't have one at all, then you won't see it. Word of mouth advertising only goes so far. Would it be possible to promote meetups and other events in a more prominent place, such as on the Wikipedia Main Page? I wouldn't expect a big banner like the Watchlist geonotice, but maybe there could be a link to an "Upcoming events" article somewhere on the page. Note that these meetups are usually informal events held in pubs. A wider promotion campaign involving press, radio, etc. probably wouldn't be appropriate for these pub meetups; that approach would be more suitable for formal training or awareness-raising events. We don't want to be overwhelmed with newbies, but having two or three turn up would be a very good thing, hence my suggestion of a more prominent on-Wiki notice. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Watchlists are usually a good way of attracting the attention of editors, rather than non-editing readers. As you said, a Geonotice mostly restricts the notice to people in a given area.  I believe that there's a way to display text only to editors who are logged in, which would reduce the "noise" for readers.  Someone like User:Edokter would know how to do that, if it's possible (and if people wanted to do this).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ideally we'd want something that's seen by non-logged-in readers too, but anything would be an improvement. Would you expect this to be on the Main Page or somewhere else? Bazonka (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe geo-notices have been used before. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC).


 * All upcoming UK and Ireland meetups get a geonotice (courtesy of myself), provided that I'm aware of them. See m:User:Redrose64: all of the linked pages are on my watchlist. If a meetup is added to any one of the pages linked from the first six top-level bullets there, I make sure that it gets added to all of the others, including the geonotice. Note that if the event is too far in the future (2-3 weeks for established meetups, 3-4 weeks for new or infrequent meetups), it won't get added to the geonotice straightaway, but held in a queue. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that, but I think you're missing my point. As far as I'm aware, the geonotice is only available on the watchlist, which if fine for people who look at their watchlist, but what about the people who don't, or don't even have one? How do we engage with them? They're a key audience for meetups. Bazonka (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Rich; I got the impression that he was suggesting that geonotices are no longer used. But yes, it's a watchlist feature. Although there are several other types of message, like the sitenotice or the central notice (that one currently showing that concerns the Picture of the Year on commons is a central notice), all these are global in their targetting. I don't know of any notice that is geotargetted and is also not tied to the watchlist. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GLAM-WIKI 2015 conference, April 9-12 2015, The Netherlands
Wikimedia Nederland welcomes interested Wikimedians and GLAM enthusiasts to join us at the GLAM-WIKI 2015 conference, from 9 - 12 April 2015 in The Hague, The Netherlands. The call for proposals and application for scholarships are now open! Ter-burg (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead section of the article on actress Rosamund Pike state the genre of the films she has appeared in, as set out in a WP:RS?
Should the lead section of the article on actress Rosamund Pike state the genre of the films she has appeared in, as set out in a WP:RS? The RfC is here <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 01:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the the lead paragraph for Mexican film director Iñárritu state the genres of his films, based on WP:RS?
Alejandro González Iñárritu (born August 15, 1963) is a Mexican film director, famous for films like Babel. I welcome your input on whether you think the genres of his films are pertinent to mention in the lead of the director's article. The RfC can be viewed here. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 00:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI - this rfc is at Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu. Blueboar (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the link after the words "can be viewed" not work? -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't when I wrote the above... but it does now. all is good. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

AltMetrics are now including Wikipedia citations
AltMetrics are now including Wikipedia citations in their scoring. I'm quoted in their announcement. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. I see that it displays "the username of the person who wrote the mention" in the results.  If editor1 adds an unformatted URL as a citation, and editor2 changes it to use a citation template, and editor3 makes some fixes to the citation template, I wonder which username will be listed.  GoingBatty (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I start my project - libreidea.org - and I need help
Dear wikipedians,

I would love to receive constructive criticism on your part on my project to improve it.

This project is somehow a WW suggestion box where people grouped around ideas to start projects. The goal is that one day the site receives great ideas (from teenagers to elders, from the whole planet) and that, some beautiful projects see the day...

For those who want to participate in libreidea here's a todo list and a chan libreidea on freenode

I count on you Wikipedians to talk to your loved ones and your network.

Thanks for your help and do not forget if you have good ideas, the reflex is libreidea!

--Vev (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2015 scholarships
Dear all, the Wikimedia Foundation Scholarships Program is still offering a limited number of scholarships to offset the cost of selected individuals' attendance at Wikimania using funding provided by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). The deadline to apply is very near, please send your applications. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

GLAM in Madrid
Hello everyone. The GLAM project has had a successful impact in Spain, being remarkable the work of Amical with numerous institutions in Catalonia. After emailing several institutions, three museums of Madrid, under the Ministry of Culture (Museo del Romanticismo, Museo del Traje and Museo Arqueológico Nacional), have shown interest in developing the Wikipedist-in-Residence initiative, by which various activities of diffusion, training and liberalization and improvement of content related to these museums will take place. As first collaboration with the Ministry, it would be a starting point and possibly serve to encourage other museums or institutions to collaborate with the Wikimedia movement. To start the project I applied for a grant to the Wikimedia Foundation, that you can see here, to evaluate and support it if it seems interesting. Thank you very much. --Rodelar (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Horrible
Have you seen this? http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/24/wikipedia-declares-war-on-women-gives-anti-feminist-males-control-over-gender-and-sexuality-entries/

I'm disgusted with Wikipedia and will be spreading the word that it is NOT factual, and a terrible source of information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.24.66 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2015
 * Yes, we have seen it. For instance, Help desk/Archives/2015 January 26 and several other places. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Facebook comments on the article, it seems that most people are against the author of the article rather than Wikipedia. So, I wouldn't take this article too seriously, as it's just some biased, liberal garbage. Pyrotle …  the "y" is silent, BTW.  15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That article is itself full of wild claims that have little to do with the real situation. This Washington Post article is better commentary, because it—unlike many other articles—gets the facts right. {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 17:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, you may be interested in reading the reports by the Wikipedia Signpost --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Wikipedia as a source of factual information, see Kitten. bd2412  T 16:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The poster certainly does seem to be wrapped up in a heavily biased viewpoint full of paranoia and conspiracy. I suppose one should hope he won't become a Wikipedia editor because he is apparently lacking in rational neutrality. Praemonitus (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP and User:WMFOffice
A user called User:WMFOffice (with all the hallmarks of an SPA, and sock, I.E. detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and personalities, but only a handful of edits, none in article space) has posted to Russavia's user page (and one or two others) saying that they have been in contravention of WMF's terms of service, thus implying they have been harassing other users. There is no evidence supplied for these negative claims about (we hope) living people, contrary to WP:BLP requirements that any such claim be immaculately sourced.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC).


 * This appears to be a valid account for WMF Office actions. The user page was created by User:Philippe (WMF) and recently edited by User:Jalexander-WMF. There many aspects of Wikipedia's terms of use. Simply stating that the ban was consistent with them doesn't necessarily imply harassment as the reason. Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Going back to Harlan
In article Emmylou Harris appearances - listing "appearances that Emmylou Harris has contributed to" - I find the song named "Going back to Harlan" listed as her own song (according to column 2, Songwriter). But in the article about Emmylou I find this quote: Wrecking Ball, produced by Daniel Lanois (...), an experimental album for Harris, the record included (...) Kate and Anna McGarrigle's "Goin' Back to Harlan".

So I haven't found the answers I was looking for: Who wrote the song? It's not easy to search the net, as other sites disagree just as much, picking randomly one for the other. My other question, not as easy to find an answer to: No matter who wrote the song, where is this Harlan? I have actually been to Harlan, KY and found it a nice place, but of course there are far more than one Harlan. Does any of those Harlans relate to either Harris or the McGarrigles? TorSch (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried WP:RD/E? They specialise in questions like this. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the hint! I re-posted it there! Rgds, TorSch of Norwegian Wiki - TorSch (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Politecnico di Milano
Hi. I am an academic working at Politecnico di Milano, in Italy. I would like to get in touch with regular contributor(s) to Wikipedia based around here, to discuss a possible project involving our PhD students. many thanks. --Gmrozz (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You basically discuss here that you want to discuss something. Not sure how many replies you'll get. :) --Malyacko (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry. How can I help? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Brown and Frank Zappa
I just discovered there is an R&B artist known as Bobby Brown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Brown There is no reference to the famous "Frank Zappa"-song of the same name. Could anybody in the know create one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.163.159 (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just click "For other people named Bobby Brown, see Bobby Brown (disambiguation)." on top and you will find out about the Zappa song. --Malyacko (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP might have missed it in the disambiguation page - the song was shoved in with a list of people. I separated the non-person entries into a separate section so this is easier to find. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC Brian Williams
Hello,

There's an RfC on the Brian Williams talk page you might be interested in Here. Thanks, SW3 5DL (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

why use double dagger (double-dagger).
Why people use double dagger in the article of 67th Academy Awards rather than other signs?-- 淺藍雪 ❉ 22:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask your question at Talk:67th Academy Awards. Good luck!  GoingBatty (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * people never reply on Talk page..-- 淺藍雪 ❉ 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't asked. --  Gadget850talk 23:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask on the talk page, then if after a reasonable time you get no replies consider posting elsewhere; best is usually the most appropriate project, which should be linked at the top of the talk page. If that also looks dead, i.e. with no recent posts on its talk page, then pick another more prominent one. But the talk page first; you may get a reply from someone who has it on their watch list, and even if you post elsewhere the article talk page is the best place to carry on the conversation.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would ask the question at the WikiProject Film. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just thought as it is using in a featured article, it may be a sort of common sense..-- 淺藍雪 ❉ 15:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello
It's possible that Desire Dondeyne died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you link to a news article about his death? (It doesn't have to be in English). ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * fr:Désiré Dondeyne, -- 淺藍雪 ❉ 22:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've updated the article here. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Using a bot to resize images
When an editor tags a non-free image for being oversize, Wikipedia uses a bot to automatically downsize the image. I question its use at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval. I've never dropped into bot approvals before, so I don't know how much traffic it gets, hence this note. - hahnch e n 22:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa
Hello

The c:Commons:Wiki Loves Africa photographic contest is reaching its end and the jury has decided the first three winners: Wiki Loves Africa 2014/Winners

We wish to add a fourth prize that will be voted by the community. A selection of 20 images (the best of the selection by jury, from n°4 till n°23) is proposed here : Wiki Loves Africa 2014/Community Prize Selection. Please cast your vote ! (only one vote per person please) Anthere

General opinion on physically restricting access to the New Pages Feed
Moved to Village_pump_(idea lab). -- Biblio worm  20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Blast from the past
Boy, AnomieBOT is sure bringing back memories as it pops old discussions up on my watchlist... :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly is. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2015 scholarships
Dear all, the Wikimedia Foundation Scholarships Program is still offering a limited number of scholarships to offset the cost of selected individuals' attendance at Wikimania using funding provided by the Wikimedia Foundation. You have less than three days to apply! Please send your applications. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Should this be italicized?
Should Ranger 8 be italicized? It is the name of something, but it is not a title. This could come up in many articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. See MOS:ITALICS, which notes that the names of "named, specific vessels", including spacecraft, should be italicized. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Ranger 7, Ranger 9, Apollo 11 and a lot of others are not italicized.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like Apollo 11 was the name of the mission, not of the vessel itself. If that is correct, then it probably shouldn't be italicized. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. GoingBatty (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is some disagreement. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 3. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link. Apparently that 2011 discussion was the last one on the subject.  The current MoS text about spacecraft comes from this edit by  in May 2014. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Apollo 11 (for instance) was the name of the mission. The command module was named Columbia and the lunar module was named Eagle.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. There is no actual problem here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that there still is a problem. Opinion above seems to be towards non-italicisation of Ranger 8, yet the article title is italicised, because was added less than an hour before  raised this thread. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Names of vessels, including spacecraft, are italicized, those of missions are not; I don't see any disagreement with this premise. Ranger 8 is a spacecraft; there is no disagreement with that premise, either. I thus don't see any open issue to resolve.  An archived discussion from around 4 years ago isn't indicative of any current dispute. The question and rationale of this VP thread were "Should Ranger 8 be italicized? It is the name of something, but it is not a title.". This proceeds from the false assumption that only titles of works are italicized, and it questions the italicization of Ranger 8 on the basis that the name isn't a title. (It's comparable to asking "Why is 'New York' capitalized, when it isn't a person?", on the assumption that only people's names are capitalized.)  We then moved past the question, with the real rationale for the italicization, and clearly distinguished vessel names like Ranger 8 from mission names like Apollo 11, which featured two vessels, the names of which are italicized. The question could come up about how to write about Ranger 8 as a mission – as a NASA operation – rather than as a spacecraft.  In that case, the least confusing result would be to refer to it as "the Ranger 8 mission", just as we might refer to "the voyage of The Beagle" or "The Mayflower landing". No one's actually asked that question, and there doesn't seem to be a dispute about it, much less one that couldn't be resolved on the article talk page, or raised more generally at an MOS talk page. There doesn't seem to be a site-wide issue here requiring VP attention.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the point is that if Ranger 8 should be italicized then there are many, many more articles that should be done the same way. Mariner 4, Luna 3, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And none of the other Rangers are italicized. I don't really care, but it is nice to be consistent.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's the eighth mission in the Ranger series, just as Apollo 11 is the eleventh mission in the Apollo series. This is what is saying; to which you replied "Yep", which appears to be an agreement with that. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not "just as". Ranger 8 is the actual name of the vessel; that it was also launched in the eighth mission in the series is incidental (it easily could have been the seventh, if one of vessels built had not been viable for launch). There is no vessel named Apollo 11.  It's comparing apples and oranges.  I replied in agreement to Bubba73 pointing out this very fact; the Apollo 11 vehicles were named Columbia and Eagle.  You do not seem to be following the conversation accurately. Sorry. Or at least not correctly interpreting it. Bubba73 has answered his own question, and I agreed with the answer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I had Ranger 8 on my watchlist, so I noticed the changed. I checked Ranger 7, Ranger 9, and Apollo 11.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ranger 8 has been notified of this discussion, as have WT:WikiProject Spaceflight and WT:MOSTEXT. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * SMc, I am not convinced that italicizing robotic spacecraft names is a good style decision, even if that's what the MOS currently says. The only books I can find that italicize Ranger 8 also Italicize Apollo 11 and such.  If anyone makes the distinction we do, I can't find it.  Is this what we want?  Or should we perhaps adjust the MOS?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is really a MOS question. I don't care which way it goes, but I like consistency.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC the Streisand Effect and Charlie Hebdo
Opinions of neutral uninvolved eds eagerly sought on this important topic at Talk:Streisand_effect

Hopefully, once folk actually read and engage with the proposed material and reasons for its inclusion, the problem should be easily resolved. Meanwhile, an unusual combination of circumstances resulted in me looking quite trollish, so some uninvested perspective would be very welcome.

Plus I suspect there could be lessons to be learnt here re declining numbers of wp editors. GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Pichincha
I am trying to find out about Pichincha, Ecuador. According to http://www.altillo.com/en/universities/universities_ecuador.asp, there are over twenty universities there. Yet,

Pichincha,_Ecuador is a tiny article about Guayaquil.

When I go to Pichincha Province, I get a page with no mention of such a city or town and with dead links Google maps shows it as a small locale just outside of Quito.

Kdammers (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Reference desk? They often answer questions of the form "I am trying to find out about ...". -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article Pichincha,_Ecuador had been vandalised, but it does appear to be a small place. However the list of universities linked to above appears to be organised by province, and Pichincha Province includes the capital city of Quito and very likely does have a large number of universities.- gadfium 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and game theory
How can the game theory be applied to model wikiedits to articles and wikidialogues in talk pages?--5.15.42.38 (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so easily: it's probably impossible to define utility functions for the English Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and individual editors. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an expert - but just pondering, it seems to me 'its complicated' and you would get some partial insights and some aspects fit but not have a complete capture or simple model. For example, the terminology of game theory might be applied to say it's a cooperative game with transparency and history and sequential moves.  Or might consider that some articles fit to the Philosophy use in being development of a shard knowledge, while more controversial ones look to be a Prisoners dilemma with 3 rounds known in advance.  Not sure where you're wanting to go with it all anyway. Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Partial insights are fine and welcomed. An interesting situation to model re cooperativity or its opposite is to estimate probabilistically the time needed by a main user assisted by another to remove a misquotation of a source which is kept in an article by 3-5 other non-cooperative editors who oppose to the elimination of the misquotation by various spurious reasons.--5.15.53.213 (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The biggest application is first mover advantage and second mover advantage. This plays out in WP:3RR, and WP:Wheel war among other things, even though we all know about it and explicitly allow WP:GAMEing to be considered on its merits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Hello
Note that Luigi Arienti has died acording to italian wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi IP. This note should go on Talk:Luigi Arienti. However the Italian Wikipedia article has no sources that verify his death. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinks going to wrong targets for years
I just found out that the article American craft had credited a book written by Michael Monroe as a source. Now the link Michael Monroe goes to a Finnish rock/punk musician, real name Matti Fagerholm, who is best known by his artist name Michael Monroe. I very seriously doubt he would ever have written a book about American craft, that must have been some American writer whose real name is Michael Monroe.

The thing is, the article American craft had been this way ever since it was created, for almost nine years. Right at the beginning, or any time since, its original author could have actually clicked the wikilink and seen that he/she had the wrong Michael Monroe. But no, he/she did not, and neither did anyone else.

I finally removed the wikilink from the author's name. I would have done it sooner, but I didn't know the article American craft existed. I only found it by using the "What links here" tool for Michael Monroe.

I myself often click on every not completely obvious blue wikilink in articles I have created, or that appear in edits I have made, just to be sure I have got the right targets. Not immediately, but usually within weeks or months. I don't just leave them entirely unchecked for almost a decade.

Why can't people be more accurate in checking their wikilinks? J I P &#124; Talk 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We see this issue time and time again with disambiguation links. People seem to make links without thinking about the possibility that there could be anyone else in the world with a fairly common combination of first name and last name. There also seems to be a sense that if a human name is linked in an article, it must be linked - even if the article is on a small high school and the name is that of the gym teacher. Perhaps this craft writer is notable, and should have an article, in which case we might disambiguate "Michael Monroe", and at least it will be easier to tell that there are bad links going to the page. I do think that it would be great if we had some kind of helpful hints coming from the system itself that would let an editor know that a link was fishy before they saved the edit. bd2412  T 22:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the user in question was an unpaid (and probably untrained) volunteer just starting to understand how Wikipedia works. Everyone makes mistakes.  Unfortunately, the user doesn't seem to be active anymore for you to ask.  Thank you for fixing the article.
 * I like to go hunting for incorrect links, such as Prince, Cream, and Pink when the user meant Prince (musician), Cream (band) and Pink (singer). Maybe this would be an area where you could contribute too.  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

how to add geocoordinate data
Hi,

I can't figure out how to add geocoordinate data. I have lat=45.8104911, long=13.4287543, but when I try to fill in a template copied from another article I get error messages. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The method for adding coordinates varies, mainly according to whether or not an infobox is used on the article, and what kind of infobox it is. So, which article do you wish these coordinates adding to? -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * to Torre (river), thanks, EChastain (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That article uses, and the documentation for that shows that two pairs of coordinates may be used: if your coordinates are those of the river's origin (which may be a source or confluence), use 45.8105 13.4287 but if they are the river's mouth (which again may be a confluence), use 45.8105 13.4287 -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention: don't use as many as seven places of decimals, that works out to about one centimetre - I'd use four places (ten metres), see WP:OPCOORD. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied at Help desk. Please only post a question in one place. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. That's exactly what I wanted to know. EChastain (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone get this to work?
The workaround described here with getting un watermarked images from a certain site [ex. ]. I can't seem to get this to work anymore...is there something I'm doing wrong, or have browser updates since then made it impossible to do? Connormah (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

New talk page watcher template created
Most editors who participate on user talk pages have seen used to preface comments. Based on concerns listed at Template talk:Talk page stalker I've created a new Template:Talk page watcher which produces. Please comment if you wish. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa: last hours to vote
Hello

The c:Commons:Wiki Loves Africa photographic contest is reaching its end and the jury has decided the first three winners: Wiki Loves Africa 2014/Winners

We wish to add a fourth prize that will be voted by the community. A selection of 20 images (the best of the selection by jury, from n°4 till n°23) is proposed here : Wiki Loves Africa 2014/Community Prize Selection. Please cast your vote ! (only one vote per person please) Anthere

Vote for Wikipedia in the DoGooder Awards
I received the following e-mail (lightly redacted):


 * We run the DoGooder Awards, which honor the best nonprofit videos each year. We do this with YouTube and something called the Nonprofit Technology Network, which is basically an association of nonprofit technologists. The purpose of the awards is to educate the broader public about important work that the nonprofit community does, and to showcase videos which will inspire other causes to invest to tell their own stories.


 * Wikimedia did a video about 2014 accomplishments on Wikipedia that's a finalist in the awards. The video has the hashtag, #Edit2014


 * A judging panel chooses the finalists among hundreds of entries. The winner among the 4 finalists are chosen by public voting. Voting opened this week.


 * My question to you... Is there a good way to let the Wikipedia community know about this? I don't know what level of interest there would be, but I think the video honors the people working on the platform and given the reach of Wikipedia, it would be really nice to see it get broader reach.


 * I know that Wikimedia has put something on their social channels, but it seemed not really to reach folks. The video has 19 votes right now.


 * Here's the link: http://2015.dogooder.tv/explore/nonprofit/198/wikipedia-edit2014

Get to voting! —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you considered Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions? GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely and I recommended that to the person who originally sent me the e-mail but Signpost won't be published in time for the vote. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It just published. Like, just. If you'd mentioned this to the editor in chief, it could have been inserted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Core Contest
is being run again in March - see The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding diacritical marks
What is going on with all the changes being made in articles (and their titles) by adding accents and tildes to proper names? Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on this. See Naming_conventions_(use_English). It is very annoying to me as a copy editor to see these mistakes in spelling: I am always impelled to dive in and correct them, and that is just a waste of time. In some instances I have had to ask an administrator for help in renaming (moving) an entire page to one with the correct spelling. I hope the people reading this can find a solution to this (apparent) wave of name changes. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't give examples, but judging by your contribs, in which I find and, your most recent concern is with Richard Alarcón. This was  in June 2006, and hasn't moved since. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Moriscos not of Arab descent, but Iberian instead?
I have made an RfC at the talk page  of the Morisco article.

Should the last paragraph in the "Expulsion" section of the article state as accomplished fact that Moriscos were mostly not descendants of Arab settlers, but overwhelmingly the descendants of native Iberians who converted to Islam?

A couple of editors insist that this statement be left as it is: "Contrary to popular belief, the Moriscos were for the most part not descendants of Arab settlers, but instead were overwhelmingly the descendants of Muladis, native Iberians who converted to Islam under Muslim rule, and were as ethnically Iberian as the Christians who expelled them." The only supporting source given is a documentary on the British Channel 4. They allow qualifying information to be appended, but revert any attempt to rephrase the declarative statement so that it doesn't represent this as an objective fact, as the article's history will show. Carlstak (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A young and old person kissing
This is a rush request for a kind editor to take a staged photo to help save Wikipedia a ton of resources.

It would put an end to two months, approaching 20k words, and many hours of observer reads, over a disputed lead image at Age disparity in sexual relationships. (It is gone now, but in the last stable version, so will return. It is a picture of a marriage -- not ideal.)

Image needed: Ideal would be a man and woman, very obvious age difference, waist up, (fake) kissing, clothes on of course, holding hands (they show age well) visible at shoulder level, so the focus of the image would be heads and hands.

Please, anyone with a camera and willing, appropriate people in the room, take the photo and upload it here.

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Only on Wikipedia is the opportunity presented to be the face of age disparity in sexual relationships. <b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">Chillum</b> 03:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, how about Cranach: (FYI all I did was put "young and old in art" in google images just now - less than two seconds) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cranach is a good start. commons:Category:The unlikely couples by Lucas Cranach (I) --Atlasowa (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget what i wrote. Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships etc. OMG. --Atlasowa (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That talk page. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone does choose to make a photograph for this, then please be very careful about privacy and personality rights. It may be easy to get a picture of Grandma and her grandson, but putting it in a context that implies they have a sexual relationship is libel.

See Image use policy for our policy and for links to the relevant policies at Commons and the WMF Board resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2015)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:


 * Project MUSE — humanities and social science books and journals
 * DynaMed — clinical reference tool for medical topics
 * Royal Pharmaceutical Society — pharmaceutical information and practice resources
 * Women Writers Online — a digital humanities database focused on women's literature
 * Newspapers.com — American newspapers database w/ Open Access opportunities (expansion of accounts)

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Help us coordinate Wikipedia Library's distribution of accounts, communication of access opportunities and more! Please join our team at our new coordinator page.
 * This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Opposite of WP:OWN
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel the opposite of WP:OWN? Whenever I create or edit an article, I feel the need for someone else to edit the article afterwards. Preferably keeping my changes in or editing them, and adding their own changes. Not simply reverting my changes. I am usually very much disappointed to see articles that I have last edited stay unchanged for months or years. J I P &#124; Talk 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DISOWN is a redlink for me. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - I feel the same way! I try to do these things to try to drive editors to the article:
 * Add appropriate categories to the article
 * Add wikilinks from other articles
 * Add appropriate WikiProject templates on the talk page
 * Add a post on the talk page to ask for specific help to improve the article
 * What do others do? GoingBatty (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A common tactic seems to be to nominate if for AFD.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nominate it for something like DYK, peer review, or if it's good enough GA or FA. Also, asking for help on a wikiproject talk page, or someplace will often bring eyes to it.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 04:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights and lists of jokes
Suppose I were to create an article that was a list of every joke in the repertoire of some comedian. This might be from a live performance or it might be from a published book. Suppose I change the wording enough to avoid close paraphrase, but still the article is just as funny as reading the book or attending the show, in a matter that is not educational and that diminishes the value of the comedian's work. Note that this is different from spoilers, because reading spoilers isn't as interesting as reading or viewing the original work. Wouldn't that be a copyright violation of some kind? Do we have policy or precedents where this has come up before? I see in this article something that comes close. Geogene (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A list can be copyrighted. If we put up a page called List of Fortune's 500 richest people 2014, that would be a copyright violation, due to the large amount of research and work that went into creating that list. So, under this principle, your example might be a problem. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Research and work don't count for copyright protection in the US, only originality does. So if the Fortune list was compiled by just ordering people by wealth and listing the top 500, the list probably wouldn't be copyrightable. But if they have some novel definition of "richest" that required human discretion rather than merely a mathematical comparison of wealth figures, then it might be. In the EU there is a sui generis database right that provides a copyright-like protection, but Wikipedia isn't under EU law and neither is Fortune. See Wikilegal/Database Rights for some details. Anomie⚔ 12:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for those answers. Geogene (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at your specific example, I doubt there's a copyright violation. Each episode of the series had a 30 minute run-time and there is no way that the short summaries in the article add up to 30 minutes. The original show clearly had a lot more detail, as well as a significant entertainment value that is missing from the summaries. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose I change the wording enough to avoid close paraphrase. I'm skeptical that you could still rightfully call those jokes the comedian's at that point. --Izno (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

someone posted
a red linked firm at List of architecture firms, which does not allow any red links. I removed it. They reposted it, I undid it again. If they post again and I undo again, am I in violation of some 3 revert edit warring rule and is the while weight of the wikilaw ? Carptrash (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind Carptrash (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In case someone else is wondering about the same question: Yes, you can get in trouble for edit-warring over redlinks.
 * (That particular list does allow redlinks, since it specifies 'notable' firms [i.e., firms that qualify for an article, which is different from firms about which some volunteer has already taken the time to write an article]. However, the anti-edit-warring rule applies even to lists that explicitly include only blue-linked articles.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I saw correctly, you only reverted twice. Three is the limit, so technically, you could have reverted one more time. That said, a much better approach is to report the problem on a page like the incident noticeboard, the edit warring noticeboard (if there are sufficient reverts), requests for page protection, or the conflict of interest noticeboard. Each serves somewhat different purposes, so you have to gauge the situation and decide which is the best choice. – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Merck Index: updating citations
My Royal Society of Chemistry colleagues and I propose to update citations to The Merck Index. As there may be CoI concerns, please review the proposal, and comment, at GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry/Merck. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Please connect the article Rodion Nakhapetov to the russian one. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Instructions for how to do so are listed at Wikidata under the first section titled Interlanguage links. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Content of user pages and signatures
Are Wikipedia users allowed to use their user pages and signatures to promote their religious beliefs? 217.44.208.143 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many templates and categories that users can put on their user pages to promote their religious beliefs - see Category:Wikipedians by religion. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Signatures states "In general, anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either."  These documents will give you lots of food for thought.  Hope this helps!  GoingBatty (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

World Heritage Encyclopedia
I accidentally run into this super-aggregator of encyclopedias when loooking into Stevens County, Washington: the WHE page looks like a complete rip-off of ours. Two problems:


 * WHE does not have reference to Wikipedia as source (nor vice versa :-)
 * Wikipedia has several references to WHE and the number will grow, since WHE seems to be a 2014 project. This poses a famous problem of circular referencing.

What is the best venue in wikipedia to discuss the issue? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I figured out myself to post an expanded text at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#World Heritage Encyclopedia. Any other venues to be alerted? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MCQ may be helpful. Also, emailing info-en-c@wikimedia.org may be useful.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I am not interested how to handle copyrights in wikipedia. I am interested how to handle suspected violations of wikipedia copyright by other websites. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The stuff in Wikipedia is simply not copyrighted. Anybody can use it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't know the subject clearly, please don't answer. Yes, wikipedia is copyrighted. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Try for WP:Civility. I am confused, then: What is this section, concerning trademarks and copyrights, all about? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's about how Wikipedia is copyrighted, but the content is licensed for use by (just about) everyone. Anomie⚔ 10:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, when you view a page, at the bottom you will find the message "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use ..." (it comes from this page); and when you make an edit, you are shown this message. Notice in particular the links to Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The text of that license indicates that Wikipedia is copyrighted. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mirrors and forks it one suggestion for how to go about trying to get it resolved. Anomie⚔ 10:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. According to your link, WHE ic compliant after all: there is no requirement to have the word "Wikipedia", it is sufficient to have a link to it somewhere, which WHE has (concealed). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Profile
For quite some while have I encountered that my search engine, Google, comes up with the usual variety of websites to a keyed in search but will not allow me to go any further than Wikipedia. It is Wikipedia, only, that immediately opens up upon my command; almost every other website opens up delayed by ten to twenty minutes. I have been wondering if this means that a virus is in my Wikipedia or if it means that someone wants my browsing activity to be dominated by Wikipedia and has therefore blocked almost all other sites, which would be censorship, not of Wikipedia but censorship for the promotion of Wikipedia. If this were the case, has anybody ever heard of anything like it? What kind of profile would be established or assumed by a browsing history of almost exclusively Wikipedia? Cornelia T. Bradford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3299:C080:B59E:27F7:4094:A29F (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried; I have no problem. Wikipedia even not the first when I search "copyright laws". When asking such questions, please tell which device are you using (computer, tablet, iPhone, etc.), operation system, search engine, and search string.


 * But what I noticed is that google sorts my results; e.g. there is a group titled "In-depth articles" I've never seen before. May be google is experimenting with engine. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Brother 8 (Albania)
Big Brother 8 (Albania) section is in Albanian, but I do not know how to tag this article or section for foreign language text. Please provide help.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a minimum, mark it . You could also list it at WP:PNT; see also WP:RFT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Elements of the NYPD caught using IP addresses to subvert the wikipedia's integrity?
Journalists have found that the New York City Police Department had close to 100 IP addresses which made questionable edits to articles that covered cases where the NYPD was involved, that seemed intended to mislead the wikipedia's readers. To what extent should the documented efforts of NYPD IP addresses to edit the articles on Eric Garner, Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo contain coverage of elements of the NYPD attempting to subvert the wikipedia's integrity?

Question: What advice should we give to off-duty NYPD officers, who want to edit articles that cover accusation of abuse by other NYPD officers? Should their user page out them as an NYPD officer? Should they be told they need to read WP:COI prior to editing any article that touches on the NYPD?

These articles should probably be locked so only registered contributors can contribute to them. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find that Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is easier to understand than WP:COI. GoingBatty (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems to go beyond COI and to meat puppetry. <b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">Chillum</b> 22:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Mischievous Easter Egg, found after five and a half years
Talk:Arthur_Jensen

Revision as of 18:19, 11 August 2009 146.244.138.85 "conceptual learning, or synthesizing ability, occurs with significantly greater frequency in whites than in blacks. He suggested that from the data, one might conclude that on average, white Americans are more intelligent than African-Americans.ref http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0001/ai_2699000187 Encyclopedia of Psychology ref"

Revision as of 16:01, 12 August 2009 69.112.3.52 "conceptual learning, or synthesizing ability, occurs with significantly greater frequency in Asians than in whites. He suggested that from the data, one might conclude that on average, Asian Americans are more intelligent than white Americans. <ref http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0001/ai_2699000187 Encyclopedia of Psychology ref"

single contrib by 69.112.3.52 reference is now a dead link.

Five and a half years, is that a record? And what race might you be, 69? GangofOne (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not unusual to find really long-lasting vandalism like that, especially on the less well-trafficked articles. Sometimes it causes a problem where external sources have used the false information, leading future editors to re-add the information. In those cases I'll add a hidden note explaining the situation. One slight defense to this is to use the quote parameter of the cite templates so people know exactly what text is being quoted. If the vandal only changes the text in one spot, the mismatch is a clue that something is amiss. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While I cant be bothered to trawl through the sources right now, it could be the case that it wasnt vandalism at all. Jensen's successors Hernstein and Murray definitely argued that Asian Americans are more intelligent on average than white Americans. So it wouldn't be surprising if Jensen made both the original claim and the Mr/Ms 69's claim in the now dead linked article. Bosstopher (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Slate magazine on the arbitration committee's ruling WRT gamergate...
Amanda Marcotte, reporting in Slate magazine described on-going controversy in wikipedia's coverage of the Gamergate controversy. In her account anti-feminist vandals, in violation of various policies, unfairly used the wikipedia to attack feminist critics of computer games -- and, in its ruling, the arbitration committee applied sanctions to both the vandals and certain vandal fighters.

After agreeing that, eventually, the work of the POV-pushing vandals was undone, she concluded:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Still, Wikipedia lost the very people who were trying to guard the gates in the first place. 'What happens to the next victim of a Wikipedia harassment campaign if the defenders are getting squeezed out through this pox-on-both-your-houses system?
 * Still, Wikipedia lost the very people who were trying to guard the gates in the first place. 'What happens to the next victim of a Wikipedia harassment campaign if the defenders are getting squeezed out through this pox-on-both-your-houses system?

I think Marcotte's criticism deserves attention. I have personally been harassed by very persistent uncivil POV-pushing edit-warriors, who were eventually blocked for policy violations. When the most persistent of these POV vandals was eventually indefinitely blocked, so was a good contributor, who had merely been trying to undo the vandal's policy violations. Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * }
 * Are you suggesting that in defending the "right thing" it is OK for "good contributors" run amok? BTW "policy violations" sounds softly. We are talking about gross abuse by the "good guys" here. Yes, sometimes one may become frustrated fending off abusers, but the only solution in wikipedia is to rally more troops, not to go vigilante. Wikipedia is a community effort; whereas so many a "good guy" take onto themselves fighting "bad guys" as a kind of personal quest. IMO what deserves attention instead, is to take a lesson from a fact why moniker "five horsemen" appeared in the first place. IMO it is a manifestation of a sad trend that established editors and admins think they have all power to fight the rest of the world in defense of Wikipedia. They have not. If anything, this is one of the symptoms of wikipediholism, and they better take a DGAF pill and share the burden.  Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose there is no escaping politics and its associated social engineering efforts. Praemonitus (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Book promotion
Please read the Ordered to Die-article. It reads: "Edward Erickson has produced the first fully researched account of the Ottoman army in the First World War. There simply has not been a similar complete account, apart from an earlier work in French... uniquely different from previous publications...very systematic, and unlike previous publications..."

In short, my WP:PEACOCK-alert went off.Can somebody have a look at it?Jeff5102 (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've edited the article to tone down the promotional language and keep the synopsis section more focused. Feel free to edit it further, though, or to undo some of my changes if they don't seem helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing "sandbox" link
I have Add a "Sandbox" link to the personal toolbar area enabled in my preferences, yet I no longer see a Sandbox link in my personal toolbar. Does anybody know what might have happened? Praemonitus (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Turned out it was my NoScript settings. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

War edits (political and personal opinion)
Talk:Buk_missile_system

(cur | prev) 06:18, 22 March 2015‎ Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎. . (80,989 bytes) (-508)‎. . (no they didn't. Get your news from a real source not one which makes up crap. Yawwwwwnnnnnn.) (undo)

the administrator does not accept the fact. it uses the media information (03,03,15) but removes media refutation (20,03,15). this a forgery + lie.

I ask you to indicate the correct path for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk I do not know the correct+formal procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.119.233.107 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on Talk:Buk missile system Ellywa (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

When is a good time to promote a user essay to one in the general project space?
A couple months ago, I wrote Verifiability, and truth in my user space. I'm considering moving it into the WP namespace, but I'm not sure about whether or not it's ready for that in terms of content and quality. I'd like if a few other editors might take a look and offer their opinions on whether or not it's ready for the move, and what might need to be done before moving it over. Thanks! // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't need to look to tell you that you can move it whenever you want. Userspace essays are reserved for two situations:  you don't want other people to mess with it (very much, anyway), and everyone else disagrees with you.  If you don't mind other people editing it, and it's not absolutely, completely, diametrically opposed to the community's viewpoint, then you can move it whenever you want.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Guess it's time to just be bold, then! // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 19:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just one thing to remember... if you move an essay out of your user space, others will be able to edit it... including any editors who might disagree with the point you are trying to make in the essay. It is quite possible that will end up saying something very different from what it says now (indeed it could end up saying the opposite of what you originally intended). Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm keeping it on my watchlist. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 13:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

High islandic
Hi all, I am busy reviving a previously deleted article on NL Wikipedia on High Icelandic. Here its a redirect, but it exists as real articles on a lot of other Wikipedia's, even Icelandic. It has a history of spamming. I have the impression that due to the fact this article exists on Wikipedia, the constructed language from the 1990s still remains a bit alive. Almost all websites about it have disappeared. Is there a scientific evidence, that Wikipedia itself creates a new sort of "truth". And could this language be a sign of this? Could you provide any sources of this happening in more cases? Pieter1 (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there have been a few news stories about journalists using Wikipedia for their research and not checking independent sources for verification. Some hoax stories (and fake entries) on Wikipedia have also made the news. Check on a search engine for more. Given the size and scope of Wikipedia, these types of events are probably inevitable. Praemonitus (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mimicing natural erosion in internet
Is any website tried to simulate erosion against itself in purpose for more natural experience?87.92.40.213 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to websites named like a coincidental http://bokelmannscience.blogspot.fr/2014/12/internet-erosion-activity-2014.html ? Otherwise, any website not competing for maintaining its rankings and its accessibility through the internet search engines will see its popularity erode if they have competitors. So the answer could be "very probably yes". However if you'd need a second registered URL in order to compete against your first, the answer might as well be also "no" (you'd need a team of websites). --Askedonty (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Research Study on Privacy
Hi all, I'm representing a team of researchers from Drexel University who are researching privacy practices among Wikipedia editors. If you have ever thought about your privacy when editing Wikipedia or taken steps to protect your privacy when you edit, we’d like to learn from you about it.

The study is titled “Privacy, Anonymity, and Peer Production.” Details can be found on meta where the project was discussed before beginning recruitment here: (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Anonymity_and_Peer_Production).

If you would like to help us out, you need to read and complete the online consent form linked here and we will get in contact with you: http://andreaforte.net/wp.html.

We are planning to conduct interviews that will last anywhere from 30-90 minutes (depending on how much you have to say) by phone or Skype and we can offer you $20 for your time, but you do not need to accept payment to participate.

I have been researching Wikipedia since 2004 and have conducted many studies, most of which have resulted in papers that you can find here: http://andreaforte.net

Thanks for considering it, please contact me if you have questions!

--Andicat (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (Andrea Forte, aforte@drexel.edu)

Looking for legal input about article titling
How would I reach out to someone from the Wikimedia Foundation about if neglecting to put a specific word in an article title's disambiguator has the potential to result in a lawsuit against the foundation? I mean, my concern might not be an issue at all in the foundation's eyes, but I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that something that can be discussed here? That would probably be best, but if you feel it shouldn't you can contact them at &lt;legal_at_wikimedia.org&gt; (obv. replace _at_ with @). Or maybe go first through OTRS. Be aware that they might take a long time to get back to you since they have a long queue. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll discuss it here, given that my worries/concerns may be reasonably invalidated. I recently stumbled upon a group of move request discussions to suggest moving some articles from the disambiguator "(pornographic actor/actress)" to "(actor/actress)". Now, I am aware that we have several guidelines created to address this and to enforce these move requests, such as WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE to get rid of the word "pornography", MOS:DAB tells us suggestions for adding disambiguators to ambiguous titles, WP:NCPDAB for person subject disambiguators, WP:NOTCENSORED says that the article can remain, etc. However, an actual legal issue I could see with doing this (with the exception of subjects who have achieved notability outside of pornography who worked in pornography separate of the other subject which they are notable) is that all pages (except for those in the "Draft:" namespace) are indexed for search engines by default. Since search engines will usually only pick up the article name and the first few lines of the article when displayed on the search engine (such as Google or Bing), I am in belief that an entry appearing this way on a search engine has the possibility to open up the foundation for a lawsuit, provided someone decides to take the "lawsuit" route due to possibly their child looking up the ambiguous term and then the search engine not being able to properly filter out the entry due to the lack of the word "pornography" anywhere at the start. (Like I said, my concerns could be righteously invalidated, but I am not sure, and I personally would rather not have Wikimedia's donations be wasted on a situation that could have been avoided.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the proper approach here is, indeed, to express your concerns to the Foundation's legal counsel via email at the address noted above. Frankly, I can't believe that they're not aware of the issue already and have concluded that there's no problem, but you can certainly contact them to make certain. If there is a problem — and I express no opinion as either an editor or as a lawyer about whether there is or is not — you should be aware that it goes well beyond just article titles into, at least, categories as well, which also show up in Google searches: see this Google search as an illustration; you should probably cover the entire territory if you're going to write to them, not just the title issue. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the Foundation would be particularly worried about this from a legal standpoint, but regardless of that we as a community should be definitely moving away from the "pornographic" qualifier and just use actor/actress instead whenever possible. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in participating in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. (My opinions regarding that belief can be found there; I'm not posting them here since I asked my question here to see if there is a possible legal issue somewhere.) Steel1943  (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Contact information: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Vatnik (slang)
I'm trying to figure out whether there's any reason why the new article Vatnik (slang) is out of place here. It's a transcription into English of a word that isn't used in English, only in Russian and Ukrainian. Even if someone wrote an article about a comparable English word that went beyond being a dictionary definition and warranted inclusion, it seems odd to me that foreign words unknown to the English-speaking world would have a presence even if they go beyond a definition. I could be entirely wrong but I thought I'd get some feedback on this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think it belongs here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with . It's one thing if it's a slang term that is used often in English, but this is a word I've never come across before ever. If it's not common English slang, it doesn't really have a purpose on the English Wikipedia. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if the word passes WP:GNG then we could have an article about it. Of course that relies on others haven written about the word in whaterver language. The test should not be if it is in English or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that WP:NOTNEO may also apply. GoingBatty (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How will we escape the Matrix if there's WP:NOTNEO? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By providing what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly missed the joke. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GoingBatty (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Scratch: The Ultimate DJ
I can understand that this product has some significance, but it's probably never going to be released. What is the policy on articles for products that don't exist and probably didn't have all that much cultural significance to start with? I imagine parts of this could be merged into other articles (e.g. DJ Hero, since it encountered a legal issue directly concerning that game), but I doubt we need more than that. Still, I'm hesitant to raise an AfD or propose deletion for this article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Crystalballism. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a rebuttal, but I don't think this is the right place for it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Recover or change password
How can I recover or change my password, if I don't have it? Obviously I am logged on now, but I want AWB use, and obviously eventually I will not get in.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TFAQ. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Whopping increase in article creation?
Looking at Size_of_Wikipedia and the main article counter, about 100000 new articles got added within the past 48 hours or so. Was this an epic article creation drive, or something else going on there? Dl2000 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at Village pump (technical)/Archive 136. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect mid-Pliocene world oceans map
This global map of the oceans in mid-Pliocene, around 4-4.5 million years ago, and the deviations in water temperature compared with the present, has all present-day coastlines which makes it rather misleading. In a real image of the world at the time, the Panama isthmus would not yet exist, northern Europe and the western Mediterranean would look somewhat different (the Baltic Sea and the North Sea were not around prior to the most recent glaciations, Java and some other SE Asian islands didn't exist prior to around 2 million years ago, India should be stretching a wee bit further south and so on. The map is an original work by a user, built on data from the US Geological Survey, but their site has moved since the graphic was made, meaning it is now difficult to retrieve and check the data it was constructed on and see how old those data are.

I suggest someone should check the file and the data it represents and, at least, add a disclaimer onto the graphic saying that the outlines of coastlines and seas are not all correct. Also, check if there are more maps from the same source by the same user with the same error (it would become graver the further back in time you got, of course). Strausszek (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The file description page shows that the source is http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/prism/index.html - I can't speak for the reliability of this, but I see that the map is hosted on Commons, not Wikipedia; have you contacted the uploader, ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)