Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive AH
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU
Don't Bother Posting Educational Videos
If you desire to link to an outside video -- even an educational video -- don't even bother.
After editing a couple of articles to include links to educational videos online (with no commercials), then I got an urgent message from one of the users commanding me to stop "spamming the website with self-promotional links." Afterwards, I noticed he had removed all of my link updates. Oh well! I guess doctors don't need to know about emergency medical procedures from other emergency room doctors!
- Well if you don't even create a user account, and then solely start adding the same link to a LOT of articles, you look like someone spamming. Wyllium 06:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hang on a moment. The first thing is that is very bad form to bite people who contribute without creating an account. We encourage people to contribute anonymously in order to get them hooked, we shouldn't complain when they go ahead and do it!
- Second thing: The IP who posted here is 69.38.37.161. Checking his contributions, he had only added four links when you wrote your comment, hardly a "LOT". Also it wasn't the same link, each link was tailored to a particular article... e.g. a link to video about drowning was added to the drowning article. A video about the Wright brothers was added to the Wright brothers article.
- So unless I've missed something (e.g. that isn't the only IP involved), please remember to Assume Good Faith and to not bite the newcomers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not justifying removing his links (which don't look that suspicious to me), I'm merely explaining why people might have reverted him. When anonymous users add the same link to a lot of articles, 9 times out of ten, it's a linkspammer. Wyllium 01:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Pete/Pcb21. I noticed the link being added on Drowning, and it looked good to me. I just watched the video, and it's not bad. I personally prefer text, but some people may like the video. I'll add the links again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- 69.38.37.161: Your stuff looks fine. Your links look fine. They should not have been deleted. Your edits to the Charles Kuralt article look fine. Sorry you got nipped, glad you mentioned it here, and hope you don't go away mad. It's really true that Wikipedia does get a lot of Wikispam, and it's true that some of it takes the form of unregistered users adding self-promotional external links to many articles, so what happened, though wrong, is, regrettably, understandable. It would have been less likely to happen if you were a registered user, and I don't know of any reason not to register--you needn't disclose anything, not even an email address. If you had registered I'd be replying on your own page, instead of here. There's absolutely no requirement to register, you can just keep contributing as an unregistered user. What happened would also have been less likely if you had included an edit summary--a short phrase or line that can be typed into a box whenever you edit a page. Dpbsmith 13:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
As I was the one who reverted the links, I feel I should comment (though I question the value of defending myself, given the comments above).
I see a lot of spam while monitoring RC, and what this user was doing is a classic example. It does not matter that the material itself was free (and "free of commercials"): the fact is, the links were added in an effort to drive traffic to this person's website. While all the links were "tailored" to the topic of the articles, they were all to the same site. This site is (apparently, please correct me if I'm wrong) a commercial enterprise and makes its money by selling ad space. Did anyone actually look at the site linked to? A good chunk of their programming seems to be entirely about patronizing their sponsors.
If I had not warned this user (politely, I may add; I did not "bite" him/her. See User talk:69.38.37.161 for my horrible warning.), s/he would very likely have continued to add links to this one website to a large number of articles. I've seen this many times before; you are free to disagree, but I believe I did what was in the best interests of the project. I might also point those interested to m:when should I link externally, which includes the helpful guideline "In short one shouldn't link externally to anything that we would like internally." If these vidoes were truly educational, we would want them internally. I don't know about you, but I don't find a travel video about Mississippi steamship cruises to be particularly "educational". (Interesting to some, sure.)
I may not be the most prolific editor, but up until recently I've happily volunteered my time in maintaining and (IMO) defending Wikipedia. But after witnessing the flak dedicated users like RickK have to put up with and seeing valuable users such as Tannin leave us, I have reason to reconsider my commitments here. If the consensus is that I've done something wrong, I sincerely apologise. I was acting, as always, for what I thought was the betterment of Wikipedia. Time will tell me if that betterment is really worth fighting for. -- Hadal 02:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Easy there. You do good work. Thank you for monitoring RC. As a long term wikipedian you know that people disagree about pretty much everything. Just because some of us feel that one revert was not needed doesn't mean that your reverts were wrong, and in fact - looking at your recent edits - I think your RC patrol work is quite good. I would like to apoligize if my comment and my reverting of your reverts came across as curt, and I certainly do not want you to stop acting for the betterment of Wikipedia! Best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- No hard feelings here, and thanks for the kind words (and awesome work on pufferfish, by the way). I'm not often reverted, but what I actually found offensive was the characterization of my actions; I feel I've been made out to be the bad guy here (I don't think there is one on either side), when I honestly meant no harm nor offense to anyone. Perhaps next time I'll wait until a user has added, oh, I don't know, 20 links to the same website before I even dare use the word "spamming". Otherwise something like this might happen again. So, right or wrong, I'm sorry for any negativity I've created and hope this user (I don't know his username?) settles in well. Cheers, -- Hadal 06:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I do not understand the abhorrence of linking to commercial entities. The argument should be solely about the quality of the linked-to material, not how it is funded (although a site with lots of flashing ads, popups or whatever would probably count as "poor quality"). I checked the drowning link and it looked reasonable. I didn't see about the steamboat.
- '"In short one shouldn't link externally to anything that we would like internally." If these vidoes were truly educational, we would want them internally.' By that logic, we would barely want any external links at all, we would want everything internally. There are obvious problems with this.
- You say your warning was polite ... but you managed to use the words "spamming" and "will result in a block" in a warning that fits on to one line on my screen. This would be absolutely fine except that they are the very first words that a new user, apparently acting in good faith, has had directed at them since joining the project.
- Apologies for continuing to debate these points after you've offered to sincerely apologise, but these "threaten to leave if I can't do things my way" posts (you and Rick are far the first) really get on my wick. I make compromises every day on Wikipedia... perhaps I am not so battle-hardened by the fighting the legions of trolls and vandals so much. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- First, see my reply to Chris above. Why is it that someone can be "spamming" without knowing it, which I believe is what happened here (and therefore he/she was "acting in good faith"), but I can't be "acting in good faith" by pointing out (what I thought was) his/her error? You again bring up my warning, which is why I ask. It may have appeared curt, but I did say please. Its brevity was purely an attempt at efficiency; I hand out many warnings in a single day, and as far as I know there's no template: suitable for spamming (whether you agree with that verdict or not). Emotions can't be conveyed very well in a text-based medium. Perhaps I should have included a smiley?
- The fact that the site was commercial isn't the point, exactly. The point is that the user was adding links to the same site to a number of articles; while it is true that only four links were added at the time of my warning, judging by the scope of the site this user could have conceivably gone on to add many, many more. While I know it's only my testimony, I have seen this happen more than a few times. I was trying to nip the problem (not the user) in the bud rather than have him/her waste his/her time and the time of those maintaining Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could advise me as to exactly how many links qualifies as spam so that I may reserve my apparently rude accusations of "spamming" to cases everyone can agree upon.
- And yes, I do apologise for any wrongdoing. I also apologise for getting on your wick with my "threaten to leave if I can't do things my way" post; I don't see that I've made such a post, of course. I didn't say I was going to leave (perhaps stop dedicating huge chunks of my evening, but not leave), and I didn't say I wanted things my way; I just don't like being villanized, and I don't imagine you do either. I welcome disagreement, however. Perhaps there should be a "don't bite the well-intentioned admin" policy, eh? -- Hadal 06:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As the person who posted this comment in the first place, I feel I should address some of the other comments. First of all, I am very glad to see such a great tool on the web such as WikiPedia. Secondly, as a newcomer just learning about it in a magazine article, I was not aware of the differences in attitude towards registered and non-registered folks. As a newcomer, I have to say I was somewhat shocked that someone would call me a "spammer" and accused of posting "self-promotional" links -- it was kind of weird to have a "new message" link pop-up and see that message being new to the site. I feel that some sort of protocol to actually CHECK OUT the links before making those accusations would be helpful. Also, I think there are lots of opinions about what is "educational" or even beneficial to a reader on a certain WikiPedia topic. However, just arbitrarily removing edits without checking them out first is not exactly fair. Legitimate edits and constructive debate about what is best for each article is certainly the reason that WikiPedia is exciting since everyone has input. Lastly, I am sure that Hadal has done good work for Wikipedia and that spammers are a big problem. But please don't automatically lump people who are new to the site and not aware of your policies in the same category as spammers. Thanks for the chance to have some input. PS: I have now created a User Account -- thanks for the tip. Also, one more thing -- thank you to everyone who took time to post to my original post including Hadal. It seems like a great way to overcome differences.
How Dry Should Wikipedia Be?
Have come across this a few times before, but having a particularly hard time with samovar - an overly colorful, and occasionaly totally POV article, but so charmingly written I almost cant stand to delete paragraphs like "Ground-breaking technologies provided mankind with wondrous inventions: space travel, nuclear powerplants, supersonic jets, and the nickel-plated electric samovar. " and "Will the twenty-first century bring Internet-enabled computer-controlled samovars that guide us through the tea-brewing process in the language of our choice?" and " During the above outlined process of evolution, the samovar achieved technical perfection: nothing to add, nothing to take away" and thats from about three paragraphs of a very long article. And article is full of computer language analogies (huh?) and more besides. Datepalm17 20:16, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- The bizarre idioms and analogies are due to the bulk of the article being lifted from a Unix Howto, which are generally written from the POV of some sort of hacker. They're a little weird. --Eequor 14:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Obviously not an encylopedic article, but it seems a shame to remove all of the colorful language - how much of this sort of colorful commentary can be kept in articles? Basically, do articles have to be completely dry, if they're understandable and free of POV and bizzare idioms and things. (and what to with totally inappropriate, but correct, analogies?). Datepalm17 20:16, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I like colourful language. It will be a sad day when it is eliminated entirely from here, and I don't think it is necessary to do so. However, some users do not agree with this and will edit anything remotely colourful to death if you draw their attention to it. So as a rule I do not. --Nevilley 21:02, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's just me, but I try to apply the "alien archeologist test". Suppose sometime in the distant future an alien archeologist finds a tiny fragment of wikipedia in the ashes of the lost "McDonaldsPlaystation" layer. All that's readable is the Samovar article. Obviously she's going to get a tiny, jaundiced slice of "our" knowledge, but does the article give her an unnecessarily wrong picture? In-jokes are funny only to those who fully understand the domain, and I think our alien archeologist could me misled as to the comparative importance of a samovar, or its supposed perfection. Now obviously extra-terrestrials and distant-future civilisations aren't a "core target market" of wikipedia, but the future civilisation of our children is, and however entertaining the sections you cite are, they're both wrong, or at least significantly misleading. Style is good, but where there is conflict, truth must always win. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I noticed too that some article are unencyclopedic for the sake of the dramatic effect. Esp. WWII articles. I have to admit that I made some of those edits myself too. I don't think those edits belong here. It is all right if an article is boring here. Andries 21:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia articles should not be dry. This is a recent and unpleasant development. The 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is full of life, full of personality and (for topics which interest one) fun to read. And, IMHO, it more authoritative than recent encyclopedias written in dry style, because many of the articles were written by top people in their field (Lord Rayleigh, Ernest Rutherford, etc.) Articles in U.S. 1930s textbook articles were lively, too. During the 1950s, during the McCarthy scare, schools and textbook publishers became deathly afraid of including anything "controversial." Meanwhile, encyclopedias, originally written by educated people for educated people, became instead highly commercialized enterprises marketed to parents who hoped to give their children an unfair advantage in school. Encyclopedia articles followed the lead of textbooks and became dumbed down and dried up.
- I agree. Wikipedia is in the game of INFORMATION, not PROSE. When people come here, they should get the correct information, without a point of view, and that's it. Personally, I find dry writing to have a certain charm of itself. Wyllium 06:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- There is nothing about NPOV that requires writing to be distant or dry. John McPhee and Bill Bryson are recent examples of nonfiction authors who are both highly accurate and wonderful prose stylists. Dry prose is sometimes a lazy way of avoiding NPOV issues by avoiding the expression of any point of view at all.
- 'So you would carpet your room ... with representations of flowers, would you?' said the gentleman. 'Why would you?' 'If you please, sir, I am very fond of flowers,' returned the girl. 'And is that why you would put tables and chairs upon them, and have people walking over them with heavy boots?' 'It wouldn't hurt them, sir. They wouldn't crush and wither, if you please, sir. They would be the pictures of what was very pretty and pleasant, and I would fancy - '
- 'Ay, ay, ay! But you mustn't fancy,' cried the gentleman, quite elated by coming so happily to his point. 'That's it! You are never to fancy.' .... 'Fact, fact, fact!' said the gentleman. And 'Fact, fact, fact!' repeated Thomas Gradgrind.
- —Charles Dickens, Hard Times (Note: for any Gradgrinds reading this... Dickens was being ironic). Dpbsmith 21:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Dryness depends somewhat on the subject matter. Holocaust should be very dry. Infinite Improbability Drive should not be (and isn't). -- Cyrius|✎ 07:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Zonealarm
I use zonealarm, I have enabled the cookie and ad block to high. However all the images in Wikipedia are then treated as ads and blocked, except for the top left logo. Anyone in mediawiki, is it possible to eliminate this glitch so that inspite of the settings, we get to see the pictures? Nichalp 19:56, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I had the same problem. Zonealarm is a law unto itself as to whatever it considers an ad to be (I think it goes on geometry, but who knows). I made a special entry in Zonealarm's "privacy" setting for en.wikipedia.org to stop it from blocking images - unfortunately one needs to do this for each wikipedia (de.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, etc). It's just one more reason I wish there were a decent Open-Source alternative to Zonealarm. Grrr. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- You could try the AdBlock plugin for firefox (see http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/). -- Gabriel Wicke 00:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- THANK YOU! I was missing the pictures of wikipedia on my computer for almost a week now, and I couldn't find out why. Now it works! -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- In case others run into this problem, let me say that I had similar problems with ZoneAlarm Pro 4.5, even after creating a separate en.wikipedia.org entry and completely freeing it from constraints. It would continue to ignore this and follow the overall settings on occasion, with no pattern I detected. I finally reinstalled ZAPro after mercilessly deleting every trace of it from my system and then recreated the separate entry for Wikipedia. It's worked well for weeks now. Go figure. -- Jeff Q 07:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Table caption formatting?
Hi, I'm using Mozilla 1.6 on Debian Linux (testing), and the formatting of table captions doesn't seem right any more on with the new MediaWiki (which I otherwise think is beautiful).
See, for example, this table — even though the caption is specified as align=bottom, it appears at the top. Moreover, the caption is has the same margins as the rest of the text, so it is indistinguishable from an ordinary paragraph (whereas previously it was narrower, to match the table). Is this a problem with that particular table's code, or is it a bug in MediaWiki? —Steven G. Johnson 19:07, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
Press Release
The May 2004 press release, about the Webby Award given the Wikipedia, at Wikipedia:Press_releases/May_2004 looks to be about finished and, as it is nearing the end of May, should be finalized. Aside from quotes which may be added, it looks to be production quality. Anyone who has edits or comments should make them soon.
As for the proposed quotes, the first would be from Jimmy Wales the founder, which we don't have yet. The second is the five word acceptance speech that was delivered or will be delivered at the awards ceremony, which of course is dependant on a fact or decision about that. Also, it would be nice to be able to include the date and location of the ceremony, so anyone who has that information should step up to the plate. - Centrx 19:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
something wierd is going on... Dunc Harris | Talk 16:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Like what? I had a look at the page history around the time you left this message, but I don't see what is weird about it. Angela. 04:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Formatting
At the bottom of the article French Revolution, the following
- ''This article makes use of the out-of-copyright'' [http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext06/8hfrr10.txt History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814]'', by François Mignet ([[1824]]), as made available by [[Project Gutenberg]].''
...shows up as...
- This article makes use of the out-of-copyright History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814, by François Mignet (1824), as made available by Project Gutenberg.
On my system, at least, there is an undesired space between the external link and the following comma. I believe this is new with the new software upgrade, and I presume it is not specific to my configuration.
- Does anyone understand what is going on?
- Is there either a fix on the way or a good, generalizable workaround? (Obviously in this case I could move the restart of the italics to after the comma, but I'm interested in a general solution)
-- Jmabel 04:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Are you seeing an icon following the external link? (Looks like two intersecting boxes). If not, there could be some browser/compatibility issue: there's meant to be an icon there, and it's present for me. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I am not seeing a space. →Raul654 05:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Try refreshing the page (Mozilla: click Reload (or Ctrl-R), IE / Opera: Ctrl-F5, Safari: Cmd-R, Konqueror Ctrl-R). There should be an image after the link. Can you see other images on Wikipedia ok? Angela. 08:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'm seeing the same problem. Screenshot:
- This seems to only occur when the external link wraps around because it reaches the edge of the screen. (Note that the icon on the second external link, which doesn't wrap around, shows up fine while the first link wraps around and has the problem.) That's the way it's been happening whenever I've seen this. Also note that a slice of the icon does show up after the "to", when the link wraps around.
- Perhaps the reason others aren't having the problem is because they're using a different screen resolution from Jmabel, so the text wraps at different places? I'm using 800x600, and I would guess Jmabel is too. LuckyWizard 06:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yup. And 800 x 600 should be supported, no? -- Jmabel 20:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'm running at 1024 x 768, and I've seen the same problem, though on other pages. I'd say the issue is just one of wrapping within a link. Anyone could reproduce it by adjusting their browser width to cause a wrap in a multi-word link. -Rholton 14:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Policy change on VfD?
Why the policy change on VfD? I'm referring to the new idea of just putting the debate under the heading, instead of using MediaWiki messages... just curious. blankfaze | ♫ 04:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- In the new version, when two people work on two different sections, it will not cause an edit conflict. The MediaWiki messages were a temporary solution for all the edit conflicts, so that's not needed anymore. Wyllium 05:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I have no desire to get involved in an edit war, but my attempts to give the article Star's Edge a more neutral POV have been reverted by user:216.53.175.46 who appears to be a devotee of the, um, philosophy. In particular, I was interested to see what the criticisms of Avatar were, so I followed the external link described as "Critics" only to find that it was an official page from Star's Edge calling all the critics liars. This is deceptive linking and does not offer any balance. Instead, I retained that link but retitled it "Rebuttal of Critics" and googled for what seemed a typical criticism link, adding that.
Would I be justified in re-reverting? How long before moderation or mediation is needed? dramatic 01:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC) (Just an old-fashioned skeptic)
I have just removed price information from this article which seems to read more and more like a commercial advertisement. Under its present classification and content I'm not sure it can be given a NPOV. The link mentioned above has again been changed and, although I too see no benefit in an edit war, to permit this to stand, commercially-driven and without someone identifying themselves as responsible for the non-NPOV content seems very non-WP. I second the query above. --VampWillow 23:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
dKosopedia: Copying articles from Wikipedia
(summarised)
dKosopedia wiki are copying our articles.
Yes, they're allowed to. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.
Hey, guess what?
Even though I don't have caching enabled in my preferences, I cleaned it all out anyway and my problems went away. RickK 21:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- It wasn't your browser cache, or media wiki's "cache articles" setting that was at fault - the squid will still keep a copy of the stylesheet(s) regardless, until you (well, someone) does a shift-reload, which makes the browser send special "no-cache" lines in the HTTP request (and thus making any intermediate caches get up off their ass and go fetch everything fresh). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- Can someone guide me through this process? I use IE6 and am, therefore, unworthy of assistance - I realise that. But have pity. --bodnotbod 15:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
error
Every time I go to a new page, I get a pop-up message saying "A runtime error has occurred. Do you wish to debug? Line [16, 17, or 18] Error: addcss is undefined". Meelar 21:15, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- Which browser are you using? That's a javascript DHTML call (I'm surprised any of that stuff is portable). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- Try clearing your cache. If it still happens, please report it at sourceforge. Angela. 21:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- I get the same error, but for line 18 only. --Jiang 22:55, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Vilna Gaon/ Elijah son of Solomon
Their seems to be an article that repeats itself under two different names one of them should be destroyed
- Which articles do you mean? There is a Vilna Gaon article, but no Elijah son of Solomon article. You could list them at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Angela. 19:11, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
Copyright problems duplication
The Copyright problems page has just duplicated the July 3 section and wiped out the July 2 section. I could fix it from history, but someone might want to take a look at what went wrong. --gadfium 01:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Copyright problems duplication
The Copyright problems page has just duplicated the JulyJune 3 section and wiped out the JulyJune 2 section. I could fix it from history, but someone might want to take a look at what went wrong. --gadfium 01:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Customizing en stylesheet
(Repeating this post as it's important to leave on the pump for more than a few minutes) Since many people have complained about the style, and since now we have the option of fixing it at least for the entire english wikipedia, I think we need to have a discussion and possible some votes, and fix the major problems.
Discussion at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css Dori | Talk 23:31, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Yay for CSS customisation
I love the new customisability, right? I was glad to be able to switch the personal toolbar from the top (ugly) to the side. But ONE THING nagged the hell out of me. For that specific menu, the links wouldn't underline when you hovered over them (coz they weren't supposed to when they were on top). It just annoyed me. So I went digging and found the little codebit that's responsible and now my links underline when I hover over them. Hooray! blankfaze | ••
- p-personal li a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }
New skin
Hi. My name is Eddie. I am a junior in high school. I use this website often for research and personal education. I really hate this new system. I find the lettering really difficult to read. I hate having to saerch around for buttons that aren't where they used to be. Can ypu please switch back to the old way? Thanks alot. Eddie.
- If you like the old style, sign in, go to your "Preferences" page, and set your "Skin" to "Standard". - Nunh-huh 22:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Replied (the same) on his talk page. →Raul654 22:31, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Tempelate Sandbox
How is someone supposed to test a temp elate if template:Sandbox is protected and template:Test is already in use? --Ankur
Frances Shand Kydd=
Why does Frances Shand Kydd appear as Frances Burke-Roche? Is there a Wikipedia rule that married women must appear under their maiden names? I though we used the most commonly used version of a person's name, which in this case is certainly Shand Kydd. We don't have articles on Margaret Roberts or Golda Mabovitz. In any case Burke Roche doesn't have a hyphen. Adam 11:03, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Frances Shand Kydd
Why does Frances Shand Kydd appear as Frances Ruth Burke-Roche? Is there a Wikipedia rule that married women must appear under their maiden names? I though we used the most commonly used version of a person's name, which in this case is certainly Shand Kydd. We don't have articles on Margaret Roberts or Golda Mabovitz. In any case Burke Roche doesn't have a hyphen. Adam 11:03, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Someone created the page Golden Age of Freethought by Moving the Wikipedia:Sandbox to it.
Thus there is an obscure page with no incoming links, yet with a History of thousands of modifications.
This must take up an enormous amount of storage space. Can some admin person go ahead and truncate the history? Any way to prevent such a situation from recurring? Curps 20:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The history has now been truncated, thanks. Curps 17:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nupedia attribution
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nupedia_and_Wikipedia . In reviewing Nupedia sourced articles from the list kept there, I don't see any uniformity of attribution style for this requirement. I also see that the links to the original Nupedia articles are now deadends. Is there a simple phrase that would suffice to meet the requirement? - Bevo 19:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
RSS/Atom feed?
I could have sworn I saw a link to an RSS or Atom feed in the "toolbox" while on some page earlier today. Though it could have been on meta.wikipedia.org. Either way, I can't find again what page I saw that on, and so haven't had the chance to see what it was an RSS feed of! -- protactin 19:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Special:Recentchanges -- Cyrius|✎ 20:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Any chance we could RSS-ify or Atomize other pages? It may be interesting to have a newsfeed for Template:Did you know, or the day's featured article, or Special:Randompage. - jredmond 00:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Disambiguation Problem
Currently, the Abercrombie page is an article about a horse named Abercrombie, with a link to Abercrombie (disambiguation). Shouldn't the disambig page be the main one? Can a moderator please move the Abercrombie article to Abercrombie (horse), and move the disambig page to Abercrombie? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:30, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- The horse is the only item actually called "Abercrombie", the others are just have that word in that name. It's probably best as is. Pcb21| Pete 14:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- There are two locations on that page named "Abercrombie", so each one could be referred to as Abercrombie. Also, the popular clothing brand Abercrombie & Fitch is commonly referred to in vernacular as just Abercrombie, and I'm sure that the Google test* search for Abercrombie would show that the most common usage is for the clothing brand. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:00, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- - yes... i know the google test is not wiki-god, but it's still significant
- There are two locations on that page named "Abercrombie", so each one could be referred to as Abercrombie. Also, the popular clothing brand Abercrombie & Fitch is commonly referred to in vernacular as just Abercrombie, and I'm sure that the Google test* search for Abercrombie would show that the most common usage is for the clothing brand. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:00, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Ummm... So how should I go about this? Is there a place I can get a vote on this? It's not really a vfd issue, is it? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:17, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I agree with Pcb21/Pete. Leave things as they are; let horsey enjoy the limelight. –Hajor 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Heck, don't worry about it too much. In any sensible layout, such as the one you suggested, (or indeed the one I would've kept, I inhumbly submit) people will find what they are looking for. No vfd required here thank goodness! 217.159.40.49 22:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Watchlist link in side navigation
Why is it gone? I want it back. --Jiang 05:04, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's at the top, I agree that the my contribs and it should be in the toolbox instead (/me waits for someone to mention the custom stylesheet). Dori | Talk 05:07, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- You can do it with a custom style sheet ;-). You are told how at m:User styles. I am loving the new flexibility. Pcb21| Pete 07:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto. Plus these hotkeys are a godsend. I'm at least 53% more efficient. --Chopchopwhitey 07:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- A godsend, yes... but slightly annoying, since some conflict with IE's menus. In particular, Alt-E (Edit in WP, Edit Menu in IE) and Alt-A (View Article in WP, Favorites Menu in IE). Also, while they automatically perform their function in Firefox (For Linux, at least), IE just moves the focus to the proper button; i.e. I have to hit Alt-L and then enter to view the Watchlist. Also, one more issue - hitting Alt-E to do something in the Edit menu has destroyed some of my edits in Firefox, thanks to the site automatically reloading the Edit page. Perhaps some alt-links like Alt-E should be disabled on the edit page? --Golbez 20:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Range block
Range blocking ability appears to be disabled. Does anyone know why and how long for? DJ Clayworth 17:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- This is the same for Korean, Latin, Simple and Meta. I expect it may have been accidentally turned off when the software was upgraded because I haven't heard anything about it being officially switched off for any reason. I'll leave a message for Tim Starling about it as he was the one who implemented it in the first place, so might know what's going on. Angela. 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- This should be fixed now. -- Tim Starling 02:52, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. On an entirely related note, our anonymous bot (?) is back making bizarre changes to Star Trek characters. I'm going to give him an unlimited ban, since 90 days didn't stop him. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Minor link edit for anon users missing
I tried to fix a typo on a page without logging in, but could not find the "Minor edit" option. Wasn't it supposed to be there ? Jay 07:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- No, minor edit is for looged-in users only. It's to prevent vandalism. Wyllium 08:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Some people choose to hide minor edits from recent changes, so preventing anons (who are the most likely vandals) marking edits as minor means their vandalism is less likely to go unnoticed. Angela. 18:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- This looks like a very weak logic for blocking vandalism. A lot many edits (the majority I would say) of anon users are minor. Also a lot many users do not have the "hide minor edits" option set, which means vandalism will continue to be reverted. If anon users are being equated with vandalism, stop the facility to anon users. Jay 17:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's not blocking (or even directly preventing) vandalism, it's just making it harder to hide, so that the wonderful contributors who keep an eye on unregistered user contributions can more quickly see the bad stuff and jump on it. Jay, you can probably save time (and do it quite safely if you have full control of your computer) by checking the box below the login button so that in future you are always logged in as soon as you come along. (A copy of that last sentence is going to your Talk page.) Robin Patterson 03:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Some points to mull about.
- Minor edits are minor edits. Period. Don't mix it up with fighting vandalism.
- A vandal who uses minor edits to vandalize is an intelligent vandal who knows the workings of Wikipedia. Such vandals are few and no amount of tactics will help fight such a user except patience.
- An anon user who uses the Minor edit is an intelligent user who knows the workings of Wikipedia. He has most probably made a useful edit.
- A lot many people do not have the "hide minor edits" option set, so I don't buy the "minor edit-anon user-vandalism" connection logic.
- Thanks Robin for the logging in tip. Jay 04:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Some points to mull about.
See Wikipedia:Minor edit, and the links at the top of that page such as Anons can no longer make minor edits, Minor edits and anonymous log-in. It's been discussed before, but the consensus was always to keep anons from using the minor edit checkbox. Angela. 00:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the references, I've copied the discussion to over there. Jay 07:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Pictures, Categories, and so forth
I am crossposting this comment to Wikipedia:Village Pump and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
I have been advised that the manual of style says unambiguously that articles with single pictures must have the picture at the very top of the article, aligned to the right. I have no particular problem with this as a general guideline. At the moment, however, when this is done to article with categories, it results in an extremely ugly article. I have been advised that this will probably be corrected at some point in the near future (although have seen no evidence that this is the case, aside from Raul654's assertion that Mr. Starling will "doubtless" do this.) In many cases, it is perfectly easy to move the picture down so that it is even with the second paragraph of the article. In most of these cases, this looks perfectly fine. It also means that we don't have absolutely hideous articles until whenever it is that the problem with categories gets fixed. For moving the pictures in several articles down a few lines, I have been accused of doing "serious damage" to wikipedia, because now people will have to "fix" all these articles so that they don't contain the ultimate indignity of having pictures slightly lower in the article than the manual of style says they should be. My feeling is that this is insane pedantry, but what is the general feeling on this? john k 06:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I am quite sure this problem is solved soon - it's not only the pictures which create that problem, but also the very popular Infoboxes. Instead of temporarily moving down the pic/infobox or move the pic to the left we can also abstain from adding the category temporarily until the glitches of the new software version are fixed - this also gives some time to think about what categories we want to add. andy 08:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
terms for administrative assembly
Does it make sense to make a list or a category various terms that denote gatherings for council, management, etc., both nation-specific and international ones: kurultai, ting, Loya jirga, veche, parliament, Congress of Soviets, etc.? Or are these belong to a list of forms of government (absent from it now)? Mikkalai 05:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that they would be a great addition to forms of government but that they are more of a 'related group' than something you would work through as a list. imho, anyway. --VampWillow 11:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia now imposes its will on its readers?
Why has Wikipedia overridden readers’ default font and highlighting selections? Do you really think ‘you’ know better than all your readers? I used to enjoy reading Wikipedia articles; they are now in a font that is painful to read—and every linked term now has a forced, ugly, and distracting underline.
(And please do not suggest that readers should edit their .css file on every Wiki they use; that is impractical. A separate profile for every web site is not sustainable!) quota
- Yes, Wikipedia is a malicious entity, run by some kind of secretive organization of web designers who aim to make things difficult on everyone.
- Seriously, though, any good browser will let you override site-specified fonts, and for that matter, practically every other visual attribute of site presentation. That's the nice thing about CSS! You may want to join in the discussion of MediaWiki comments and bug reports, layout design, the monobook skin, and skins in general, among others; participating in the existing discussion on these issues is more likely to bring about change than simply complaining about it. -- Wapcaplet 19:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- You can use one stylesheet across all wikis by dropping @import url(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:You/Monobook.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css); in the secondary wiki's Monobook.css. Then you only have to edit the en version. -- Gabriel Wicke 11:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think the fans of the new cutesy-but-less-readable font are missing the point. The experts can change CSS stuff any time they want. It's the ordinary folks who don't invest major portions of their lives to learn all the intracacies of the latest browser styling fads that are left to squint at this unannounced, unvoted-upon, fait-accompli change. (I won't even dignify the idea that one should change one's default browser fonts just to make Wikipedia look nice with an indignant response. Or have I just?) ☺ -- Jeff Q 04:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Edits from before the crash are there... but not shown?
I made a few edits on things like James Bond and Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing that don't show up on the main page. Then if I look at history, my changes are there. I compare the current (mine) to the one before, and it shows mine. If I hit 'edit' trying to put the changes back, they are already there! Ideas? I've cleared my browser caches and Squid caches. Not only my stuff - example, I went to add a new link to the end of Google for GoogleWhack.com and somebody already did, but it doesn't show up on the main article page. --Revragnarok 11:11, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I just had this happen at Talk:Luckenbach, Texas (history). --Smack 23:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Seems to work now...?--Revragnarok 00:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Questions about categories
My main question is about changing a category. What I've noticed is that if you edit an article and rename the category ie if the category was incorrect or too general, it will create a link in the new category page, but the link remains also in the previous category page, even though that link does not show on the subject article page. For example Jack Nicholson was originally categorised as Category:Actors. I'd read on the categorisation talk page that Paul McCartney should be British musician, but not musician, because British musician would be a subcategory of musician, so I applied the same logic and changed Jack to Category:U.S. actors and actresses where he now appears. But in the Category:Actors page he still appears even though there should be nothing to link him there, and in the Jack Nicholson article page, the only category now visible is Category:U.S. actors and actresses. Does anyone know why that would be? Am I doing something wrong or is there a problem with the database or what?
Also another question which is less important but I'm trying to get my head around categories and subcategories. So .. Category:Vocalists and Category:Pop singers. To me, all pop singers are by definition vocalists, so along that line of thinking every person categorised as a pop singer should also be categorised as a vocalist. But is that the intention? Should vocalist just be for a band's vocalist? ie Robert Plant vocalist, but not pop singer. Along the same line I would categorise Belinda Carlisle vocalist (Go Gos) and pop singers, (solo). Britney Spears pop singer, but not vocalist? Would be interested to hear how anyone would interpret this. Thanks
And now I've just discovered that the category pages can't be linked from here. Which is why I've italicised them instead. As if I wasn't confused enough! :-) Rossrs 10:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete problem
A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an illegal search query (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: DELETE FROM cur WHERE cur_namespace={$ns} AND cur_title='Baron_Rutherford' from within function "Article::doDeleteArticle". MySQL returned error "1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax. Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '} AND cur_title='Baron_Rutherford at line 1". Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Rutherford"
- UtherSRG 12:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Invitation Letter
Last weekend, I went to a number of places where there were guided tours, and that got me thinking...it would be nice if this person could contribute their knowledge of this place to Wikipedia...
I think there should be a standard letter to invite people to share their knowledge with Wikipedia, for when you come across someone who knows a lot about something.
Or does a simlar thing already exist? What do you think? RealGrouchy 00:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's a great idea. There's some sample solicitation letters linked from Wikipedia:Building Wikipedia membership. — Matt 02:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Name change for Wikipedia?
I think we should call a vote regarding changing the name of Wikipedia to something different. The word 'Wiki' just doesn't have a ring to it. I say we vote to change it, and if Management doesn't like it then we can think about taking legal actions. We all contribute, so why shouldn't we have a say in the name. I already have had the legal paperwork drawn up for this, so all we need is votes now. - Jiang 02:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Help Wanted - mis-spelled links needing fixed
Howdy. I've been running some analyses of links to non-existant articles and have hit a problem - too many things for me to fix!
There's a (I believe very high quality) list of over 1000 mis-spelled links available here - each entry also lists what the link should probably be. If anyone has an hour or two to spare, grab yourself a hundred items from the list to check and fix please.
- TB 15:10, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I just did all the H's. It quite relaxing, really, I might grab another letter this afternoon. :-) —Stormie 00:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Japanese word "haron"
Why was "furlong" katakanized as "haron" rather than as "faaron" or something like that? Juuitchan 07:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Well, in most circumstances, katakana doesn't have the option of using the "fa" syllable - "f" exists only before "u". If you take a look at the chart in the katakana article, you'll note that there's only "fu", and no "fa", "fi", "fo", or "fe". It's technically possible in modern katakana to create "fa", but use of these modern extensions is (I think) fairly rare. But I'm not an expert. -- Vardion 09:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The modern norm is to katakanise as 'fa' ('fu' followed by a little 'a'), as in 'fan' or 'fashon' (fashion). Which page are you referring to? --Auximines 10:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The Japanese Wikipedia page titled "haron" (in katakana) is what I was talking about. Also, the Japanese word for "foot" (the unit of length) is "fiito".
- I suspect furlong is katakanised the "old" way (ハロン - haron) because it's a somewhat antiquated word - as the article says, it's only really used in horse racing - so it hasn't been modernised. Compare, for example, the word "fork". It used to be katakanized "hook" (ホーク), but nowadays is always written "fook" (フォーク). --Auximines 11:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Respect and Decency
I am appalled at the material that has been submitted to this encyclopedia by users. I have attempted to remove material, specifically from articles about Jennifer Love Hewitt, Cary Grant, Drew Barrymore, Kylie Minogue and Angelina Jolie. Having read many thousands of legitimate articles in such publications as Encyclopedia Brittanica, I am quite familiar with the standards that they apply to their work, and these are in no way consistent with what is being allowed in Wikipedia.
In an additional ironic twist, the articles that I have written about Negro League Baseball players were materially altered by various fellow users, one in such a way that I consider to be racist. If anyone at anytime may alter another contributor's articles, even in offensive ways, then it seems to me that my "censorship" of the articles of others amounts to no more than the editing done by every other user of Wikipedia.
To state my reasons for editing the above articles, I will say that stating that a private area of the body of a serious actress are her best-known feature and providing a link to a crazed website that focuses on the woman's anatomy is extremely sexist, vulgar and classless. I also think that making reference to a certain supposed incident in Cary Grant's adolescence is highly unneccessary and unprofessional. Furthermore, listing an actresses's "measurements" is demeaning and an invasion of privacy, as well as being completely unnecessary to the content of the article. When the same writer adds his tabloid-based opinion about her sexual orientation, the debasement is complete. I think, too, that most would agree with editing an article with three paragraphs focusing primarily on a private area of a female singer's body and accompanied by a photograph that brings to mind the worst sexist images in rap and hard rock music videos. I also made an innocent change to an article on an actress that implied that her looks are more responsible for her success than her talent, something that I know to be entirely false.
I assumed that I was perfectly free to make such changes as I wished, since my articles had been terribly butchered and since the disclaimer below what I am typing right now says that articles may be "mercilessly" edited. Yet a certain overbearing webmaster (and he knows who he is) has said that I am committing "vandalism" and orders me to stop what I am doing or lose my membership with this site. Okay, then would he please tell others to stop vandalizing the social message of my articles?
I would like to request that a higher standard of respect, particularly for women and their privacy, be upheld on this site. I do not believe that anyone reading this would want such things said or shown of their sister. I am not asking to remove legitimate biological and psychological discussions of human sexuality, merely to prevent a pornographic mindset from seeping into what should be a serious educational tool. I encourage feedback so long as it is not of a threatening or accusative nature. Thank you. (Felix F. Bruyns)
- The page diffs in questions are:
- Cary Grant
- Angelina Jolie
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jennifer_Love_Hewitt&diff=0&oldid=3849452
Jennifer Love Hewitt]
- It appears to me that you were removing legitimate information from the articles because it is politically incorrect, which (in my book) is not a valid reason. →Raul654 00:24, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Raul, Felix F. Bruyns is a troll who appeared here a couple of days ago as User:168.103.232.64. When asked about copyvio regarding his baseball player entries, he did not reply but changed his name. Unfortunately, his copyvio entries remain. Moriori 00:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Felix, I had a look at those. Some I agree with - the paragraph you removed from Jennifer Love Hewitt shouldn't really have been there. Others I don't - the swathe of material you removed from Kylie Minogue was a perfectly fair summary of a part of her career. Angelina Jolie and Drew Barrymore I have edited in an attempt to find a compromise that might be acceptable to both you and the people who have been reverting you. Cary Grant I'm leaving alone since I have no idea whether the incident in question is idle gossip or well-known fact. --Stormie 00:44, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Well I disagree with Stormie. None of the material should be culled. Just because other encyclopedias are too worried about appearing prurient doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be. I have restored all the censored material including the Cary Grant story for which I found a reference. Paul Beardsell 01:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Paul, the only thing I thought should be culled was the line "References to her breasts cropped up in almost all of her print interviews, and even inspired the creation of a website devoted solely to them [2]" in Jennifer Love Hewitt. Reason being: the website linked to is 404, so obviously that half of the sentence needs to be lopped out, leaving only "References to her breasts cropped up in almost all of her print interviews" which is a terrible, vague, meaningless, unverified (and probably unverifiable) mess of a sentence. I have no problem with someone writing something about the fame of her breasts - but that sentence is terrible. The other articles, my "compromise" edits all involved adding material for clarity or balance, not culling anything. Oh, and the reference you found for the Cary Grant story is fantastic, keep up the good work! --Stormie 01:23, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to say I disagreed with you in that respect only. I did not follow the link. It has also been pointed out I have used the word prurient incorrectly. Now fixed, kind of. Paul Beardsell 01:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- While "Felix F. Bruyns"'s deletions were excessive, I agree with a couple of them. Specifically, an external link that gives a 404 error should not be in WP, and an actress' measurements should not be included. Why? 1) it is POV to list female measurements, but not male. 2) inherently unverifiable--unless you have a tape measure, and access to the person. 3) variable--just because the measurements might be true today, who knows about tomorrow.
- I would not have removed the 'bisexual' reference from Ms. Barrymore's article, but I would argue that it is also POV to cite bisexual people, unless sexual orientation is referenced in all biographical articles. Niteowlneils 16:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It isn't POV if the person in question self-identifies as such, and its POV to try to hide the information. I don't have a problem with the edit Felix made to the Jennifer Love Hewitt article, it was silly, but I'm very worried about censorship, and will revert if Felix gets carried away with this "decency" fixation. Moriori, have you listed the supposed Copyvios on WIkipedia:Copyright problems? RickK 19:06, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Thoughts on new-page-creation notice text
I'd like to see the new-page-creation notice—the one that begins "You are at a page that does not exist yet"—include something short and pithy along the lines of "Please do not create an article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business." If interested, please discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Thoughts_on_new-page-creation_notice_text (not here). Dpbsmith 23:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Official Wikipedia song (redux)
Since the original discussion (currently archived in Wikipedia:Village pump/May 2004 archive 2), I've been tossing and turning all night just *knowing* that the right song was only a moment away. It finally struck me in a dream last night--and the lyrics were right here all the time. They just needed a wee bit of updating and correction--OK, a whole bunch of changes--for our particular situation. Using the specifications in that original discussion, I present for your comments The Web Encyclopedia Song. Elf | Talk 22:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- No, no, it should be based on Ko-Ko's song in The Mikado, "I've Got a Little List" :-) Seriously, very apropos. Nice! The funny thing is that it was just the other day that I was noting, in the article on Caratacus, that it can also be spelled Caractacus and that it's a version of the name Caradoc. (A Caradoc, a Caradoc, a most ingenious Caradoc...) And, of course, in VfD we were just discussing making Quadranomial expansion a redirect to Multinomial formula... Dpbsmith 19:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Caractacus gets around. (ingenious Caradoc... boo... (a play on "A paradox..." from another G&S operetta)) I now remember a song from childhood about "The ladies of the harem of the court of King Caractacus..." but I always thought it was a made-up name. Wikipedia enlightens me again! Glad we've got multiple Gilbert and Sullivan fans here, although I'm afraid that it won't translate well into other Wikis--has G&S ever been successfully translated into other languages? There's so much word play. Elf | Talk 19:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedians with reference works
I may start a page called Wikipedia:Wikipedians with reference works for anybody who wants to to list the reference works they own in case there is a question. I have quite a few books on subjects I'm not very interested in, but I'd be glad to look something up if there is an issue. Since these aren't topics I care about, no relevant pages are on my watchlist and I'd never notice a debate. So, if I created such a page, would anybody else be willing to add their own reference works to it? Tuf-Kat 20:27, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- There already is such a page: Wikipedia:Research resources.--Eloquence*
Spammer at work
can an admin pls put the breaks on this dude: 68.7.15.227 thanks! Erich 23:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Missing edit history
What's up with the edit history for Cardiopulmonary resuscitation? I made loads of edits a few days ago (June 4th) and they show up in my contributions but not in the edit history for that page. (The edits are present in the page though). It still says "the database is read only..." but I can't see that message anywhere else now and the database obviously is not read only or I wouldn't be able to write this...? Tjwood 16:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It seems to be back to rights now; I'm not sure if it was a forced page reload I did that solved it. Tjwood 17:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have Wiki'd for x days now, and my shame is automatically displayed
I asked this question on Help Desk but no answer was received, so Meelar suggested I ask here.
I would like to add to my user page a bit of code/boilerplate that says "I have been a Wikipedia user for x days". It's the x bit I would like to be autoupdated. I know from the board elections that Wikipedia knows how long I've been here, since it told me I couldn't vote. So it would be nice to be able to tap into that. Anyone know if there's a way to do it?
On a similar note, a and have made y edits would be nice. --bodnotbod 16:15, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
- You just got a response over there → :-) ✏ Sverdrup 16:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ethnic Groups Infobox
I have been attempting to add the following here, but I keep getting a DB error. I'm no-wiki-ing it to try to get it in. If anyone can work out what is wrong, please feel free to clobber this preamble and the nowiki tags.
There is a proposal to change the ethnic group infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template. Proposed alternatives can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template#Color scheme. Some people may want to propose more drastic changes: see Talk:Jew#Ethnicity box. If you have an opinion, please chime in soon at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template#Color scheme]]. -- Jmabel 21:24, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Goodbye
It was fun while it lasted. But I've interest in working here as long as people just delete what they don't like without discussing it on the appropriate talk pages. There are more mature places on the internet to work. [email protected]. Abigail
Confused categorisation of "Kelvin"
Kelvin is tagged as belonging to but does not list Kelvin. Any ideas on what's going on here? -- Grunt 03:16, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)
Kingdom of Israel is largely myth.
The main page of Wikipedia displays an article about Zionism with a link to an article about Kingdom of Israel. The article about the Kingdom of Israel is based too much on Old Testament lore taken at face-value. For one thing, archaeology has shown that Jerusalem did not exist as a city in the period circa 1000 B.C. when Solomon was suppsoed to have ruled there, so the reference to Solomon as a king of Israel is pure fantasy. The story of Solomon is actually based on a king Sulayman who ruled in Arabia Felix.
I am especially sensitive to the inclusion of this kind of myth because I just read an argument about whether the dubious information about the Merovingians from Holy Blood, Holy Grail should even be mentioned in the article about them. Clearly, the myth about the ancient Kingdom of Israel has to be mentioned, because the myth is a powerful influence in Zionism, but at the same time the dubiousness of the Biblical account of the Kingdom of Israel should be discussed as well. Indeed, if fact is to be emphasized more than myth here as in the case of the Merovingians, the entry on the Kingdom of Israel should contain a high proportion of debunking.
ISO 8601 date format
ISO 8601 date format "2004-06-14T05:43Z" is better than "05:43, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)".
Please require HEIGHT and WIDTH tags for images
Please have the server insert HEIGHT and WIDTH tags for images so the page doesn't jump around when it is loading. --Juuitchan
- This is an excellent suggestion: copying to bugs list.
The image below does not look OK (Monobook skin or Standard skin, Mozilla FireFox 0.8): (but does look OK with either skin using IE6)
===Painter's algorithm===
Illustration for painter's algorithm. Early crappy attempt at vector drawing from me, but I'm giving this nomination a shot anyway. Fredrik 15:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting that Mozilla FireBird 0.7 (the previous version of FireFox) renders both images correctly. So, maybe there is a bug in FireFox 0.8 ? - Bevo 14:22, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The images seem ok to me, running FireBird 0.8. What are they supposed to look like?--Fangz 23:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Three boxed images of the same size, enclosed in a box. And, it's FireFox 0.8 (not FireBird), right? - Bevo 14:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Oopsy, I did mean Firefox 0.8. That's what I see. It looks right to me. I'm using the monobook skin, a screen resolution of 800x600, Win 98, with the style sheet mods that give rounded corners and bottom tabs. What about everybody else?--Fangz 00:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Looks ok for me after removing the table. This also has the advantage to work better for really small screens (pdas etc). You can use the same techique with the <br style="clear:left"/> at the end for photo galleries as well, the images will wrap to the available screen width then. -- Gabriel Wicke 22:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
===Painter's algorithm===
Illustration for painter's algorithm. Early crappy attempt at vector drawing from me, but I'm giving this nomination a shot anyway. Fredrik 15:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting that Mozilla FireBird 0.7 (the previous version of FireFox) renders both images correctly. So, maybe there is a bug in FireFox 0.8 ? - Bevo 14:22, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The images seem ok to me, running FireBird 0.8. What are they supposed to look like?--Fangz 23:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Three boxed images of the same size, enclosed in a box. And, it's FireFox 0.8 (not FireBird), right? - Bevo 14:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Oopsy, I did mean Firefox 0.8. That's what I see. It looks right to me. I'm using the monobook skin, a screen resolution of 800x600, Win 98, with the style sheet mods that give rounded corners and bottom tabs. What about everybody else?--Fangz 00:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Looks ok for me after removing the table. This also has the advantage to work better for really small screens (pdas etc). You can use the same techique with the <br style="clear:left"/> at the end for photo galleries as well, the images will wrap to the available screen width then. -- Gabriel Wicke 22:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The image below looks OK (Monobook skin or Standard skin, Mozilla FireFox 0.8): (also looks OK with either skin using IE 6)
===Painter's algorithm===
| |||
Illustration for painter's algorithm. Early crappy attempt at vector drawing from me, but I'm giving this nomination a shot anyway. Fredrik 15:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Current Sports EventsOn the eve of the French Open and Stanley Cup happenings, I was wondering if we could make a Current Sports News page, different from the 2004 in sports page that we already have, to cover major events that otherwise might not be covered by Sports in 2004. I watch Sportscenter a lot, I could manage the page well. We could put it on Main Page beat where Current Events and Recenth deaths are at. Antonio Long One Martin
I have no problems with a link as suggested by Hajor. But I think an extra box on the front page is too much, and I am personally not interested at all in sport news. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have Wiki'd for x days now, and my shame is automatically displayed
TechTV/Comcast MergerWhat shonld we do abont the TechTV article? I propose moving it to G4TechTV and making the old article a re-direct. (Please discnss at Talk Page, I jnst wanted a pnblic place to post this) Ilyanep 17:32, 16 Jnn 2004 (UTC) On Providing Sonrces For Fiction (renewal)If yon wonld like to know my proposal see the original entry on the topic &qnot;On Providing Sonrces For Fiction. And I mnst say, I mnst complain abont this policy when applies to all Wikipedia articles. My proposal still stands to change yonr policy slightly. The developers and and service people shonld at least be aware of this. --User:Marcns2
If yon are looking for the previons discnssion, check &qnot;79&qnot; in the table of contents. And what do yon mean by showing links and nsing Google? --Marcns2
Sorry abont that, I didn't mean to barge in on yon like that if that's what yon think. The contoversy is of the articles Snper Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and Bowser (Nintendo character). Fredrik and Meelar argne the doctrine that Mario, Lnigi, Yoshi, and Bowser met as babies and revert my edits that delete the mention. Meelar in particnlar said that I needed to back np the deletion with a sonrce, after I had already explained what really happened in the history of the Mario Bros, which refntes the text I deleted. Since it's based on fiction, it isn't a big deal, so I was thinking that there shonld be an exception made in Wikipedia's policy. --Marcns
Actnally, I do not want to add my own fiction. I may discnss it, bnt I won't add it to the encyclopedia articles. --Marcns2
I'm not adding anyone else's fiction either. --Marcns2
I'm not proposing to add info. I'm proposing to delete what I think is a little false to me. --Marcns2
What jnstification are yon talking abont? Have I not already discnssed it with yon? --Marcns2
Okay, what is it that yon have tronble nnderstanding? --Marcns2
In what way am I being evasive?! Anyway, my proposal is that Mario and Lnigi were reared in Brooklyn, and therefore not orientated with the Mnshroom and Koopa Kingdoms and Dinosanr Land (Yoshi's residence) prior to working as plnmbers. And another thing, Baby Bowser likes to ride Yoshi. --Marcns2
Certainly, the proposal was based on nnmerons material from Nintendo. --Marcns2
VandalbotThe vandalbot's changes aren't showing np when I view Recent Changes. How do I view bot changes? Yes, I know Wik has started listing his changes as minor, bnt even before that, they weren't showing np. RickK 06:13, Jnn 16, 2004 (UTC)
Self-linking?Is it jnst me, or are all new articles claiming to link to themselves (ie the article appears in the &qnot;what links here&qnot; list)? Worse, if yon move the page, the article continnes to claim to link to the old location, now a redirect page. See Fnlbert Yonlon, and its &qnot;What links here&qnot; page. Niteowlneils 05:43, 16 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
DashesOpinions are being songht regarding a proposal on this thorny issne for inclnsion in the Wikipedia:Mannal of Style. Please see the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Mannal of Style/Dashes. Thanks. –Hajor 20:15, 15 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Half-million article poolThere's still a day left to get yonr vote in on the Wikipedia:Half-million pool. Based on the cnrrent bets, the English Wikipedia is expected to pass 500,000 articles sometime in early 2005. There's no prizes other than the opportnnity to gloat over yonr peers. And isn't that good enongh? The contest will be closed to new entries at 03:07 Jnn 17, 2004 (UTC). -- Cyrins|✎ 18:44, 15 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Adding Category:Disambignation to Template:disambigWonld adding <nowiki></nowiki> (or perhaps <nowiki></nowiki>) to Template:disambig be a good idea? I know that disambignation articles wonld not instantly show np in Category:Disambignation, bnt as they are edited, they wonld be slowly added to it, and this wonld be better than adding them all by hand even more slowly (and nnreliably)... It wonld also eventnally replace the need to maintain Wikipedia:Links to disambignating pages which cnrrently takes forever and a day to even load. --ssd 05:10, 15 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Stnb msg weirdnessAnyone else having <nowiki>Template:Stnb</nowiki> behaving erratically? It can have the normal old message, like at Panchathan Record Inn, or be &qnot;Template:Stnb&qnot;, like at Xanthosoma. Snre look the same to me. Niteowlneils 03:34, 15 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
This weirdness has to do with some changes we've been discnssing over at Template talk:Stnb. This probably warrants a post to wikitech-l. --Diberri | Talk 04:22, Jnn 15, 2004 (UTC) The EconomistI'm not snre if this has already been raised, bnt Wikipedia has got a mention in a leader in this week's The Economist as a &qnot;snrprisingly good open-sonrce encyclopedia&qnot; in an article on the economics of open-sonrce generally. Looks like wikipedia's star is still very mnch on the rise. Kndos to all. 217.159.81.197 18:43, 14 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Resnlts for the Elections to the Board of TrnsteesCongratnlations to Angela and Anthere, who have been elected on the m:Board of Trnstees as Volnteer User Representative and Contribnting Active Member representative, respectively! Bnt — where are the election resnlts? In any election I know, the final resnlts (which candidate got how many votes) are pnblished together with the annonncement of the winner(s). Lnpo 08:43, 14 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
I think most candidates agreed to resnlts being pnblished, except for those who are not often on the mailing list, and did not see people reqnests. Danny is bnsy getting these last agreements. Hopefnlly, resnlts will be visible in a few honrs.<br> I also agree that low resnlts do not mean the candidate was bad at all. They may be little known, or the votes may have been strongly political. Sorry to hear that some people do not recognise the validity of Angel and I elections thongh :-) SweetLittleFlnffyThing 23:29, 14 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Imran let some of the resnlts for top vote-getters ont on IRC, having gotten permission from the candidates involved. As they were stated:
I apologize if I'm stepping on anyone's toes by posting this, bnt it was stated pnblically, and people are getting antsy for actnal nnmerical resnlts. -- Cyrins|✎ 02:41, 15 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
China blocks WikipediaI think we conld all see this one coming - sad bnt probably inevitable...
-- ChrisO 07:54, 14 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Relevance is niceWhat or who determines the daily featnred article? I wish they wonld select ones with a bit more relevance to todays problems/issnes and entertainment.
ISO 8601 date formatISO 8601 date format &qnot;2004-06-14T05:43Z&qnot; is better than &qnot;05:43, 2004 Jnn 14 (UTC)&qnot; for signatnres, etc. Rajasekaran Deepak 06:20, 2004 Jnn 14 (UTC) The ISO-8601 formats are lovely for creating compnter-readable text, bnt are not too readable for hnmans. I believe this argnment has been done to death before bnt sadly cannot recall jnst where. HTH HAND--Phil | Talk 13:51, Jnn 14, 2004 (UTC) My own preference wonld be writing all dates in ISO 8601 format and having the software optionally display them differently... bnt that probably won't happen. Fredrik (talk) 14:47, 14 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Hijacked browser keysAlong with the new layont, Wikipedia seems to now hijack browser keys. For example, when I hit &qnot;alt-f&qnot;, which normally brings me to the &qnot;file&qnot; menn of my browser, Wikipedia instead moves my cnrsor to the &qnot;search&qnot; box on the right hand side. When I hit &qnot;alt-e&qnot;, which normally brings me to the &qnot;edit&qnot; menn of my browser, Wikipedia instead seemingly does nothing - nntil I happen to hit the &qnot;enter&qnot; key, at which time it magically brings me to the &qnot;edit&qnot; page for the article I happen to be on, even if I hit a bnnch of other keys in between &qnot;alt-e&qnot; and &qnot;enter&qnot;. I'm snre that the heart of whoever made this featnre was in the right place. Bnt please. Please. Tnrn it off. There's nothing worse, from a UI point of view, than taking something that the nser knows so well that he doesn't even think abont it, and replace it with something else entirely. It stops me in my tracks, confnses me, and forces me to think abont things on a conscions level that otherwise are entirely snbconscions. Moreover, it can be viewed, in a way, as rnde. I know how to nse my browser. I know how to edit Wikipedia articles. Please don't presnme that yon know better than me how I shonld nse my browser and how I shonld edit Wikipedia articles. Thank yon. -Rwv37 03:29, Jnn 14, 2004 (UTC)
I believe it is only a featnre with the Monobook skin. It doesn't look like there's a way to tnrn it off inf Prefs (probably shonld be), so yon'll probably have to switch back to Standard if yon want to nse the ALT keys. Niteowlneils 05:50, 14 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Seeing as accesskeys are a W3C standard, it's not really fair to say that a site (the Wikipedia) nsing them is hijacking keys. It's the browsers that needlessly cede control over their shortcnt keys. Apparently IE on PC, and Firefox on several platforms, stnpidly assign conflicting accesskeys and don't do anything abont the conflicts. I'm lncky, becanse Firefox on Mac assigns accesskeys to ctrl which don't conflict with anything — I'm having a blast nsing them. Nathan 19:52, Jnn 15, 2004 (UTC)
80x15 link bnttonIn case it's nsefnl to anyone, tonight I made this: File:Wikipedia bntton 80x15.png It's the vagnely-standard link bntton size of 80x15. Feel free to nse it to link to Wikipedia. Marnanel 01:04, 14 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
HELP!!!Hi! I started the Cnrrent Sports Events page yesterday, by copying the Cnrrent Events page model, bnt something went wrong, and the letters look extremely small....I need help, can someone correct this? Antonio World Matrix Martin 20:something 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Section editingWhen editing only a single section, where yon click on the edit link next to the section name and cannot edit other parts of the page, the software shonld not prompt an editing conflict if other sections of the page are changed. This wonld be qnite beneficial, especially for active pages like the Village Pnmp or VfD and, if section editing is only a nser interface thing and still posts the entire article, then changing that wonld be of great benefit to conserving Wikipedia bandwidth, etc. - Centrx 20:18, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC) I thonght this was changed with the latest change of the software. RickK 21:00, Jnn 13, 2004 (UTC) Antomatically fixing category sorting nnder &qnot;C&qnot; ?It seems that there was a bng at one time, cansing any article added to a category to be sorted nnder &qnot;C&qnot;. Articles sorted this way remain there nntil the next time they are modified. For instance, Category:Programming langnages, as of this moment, has &qnot;Ada programming langnage&qnot; listed nnder &qnot;C&qnot;, as well as &qnot;JavaScript&qnot;, &qnot;Fortran&qnot;, &qnot;Lisp programming langnage&qnot;. Fixing this is very simple for any individnal article: jnst Edit it and Save. This can be done even withont making any changes dnring the edit, in which case the &qnot;modification&qnot; won't even show np in the article History. Bnt the category will now show the article nnder its correct alphabetical letter. The problem is, there are many snch bogns &qnot;C&qnot; listings, scattered over all the varions categories and snb-categories. It may be months before some of the articles in qnestion get edited and modified in the normal conrse of Wikipedia editing. Is there any way to rnn a script to fix this globally, or mnst we wait for the problem to fix itself over the coming weeks and months? -- Cnrps 16:37, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
&qnot;Page does not exist&qnot; warningThis may sonnd silly, bnt I've jnst noticed that the notice one gets on pages that do not exist is: &qnot;(Wikipedia does not have an article on this topic yet. To start the article, click Edit this page.)&qnot; Thing is, nnder the cnrrent defanlt skin, there is no &qnot;Edit this page&qnot; link - there is simply an &qnot;edit&qnot; tab at the top of the page. Conld someone modify this message? I gather it's somewhere in the MediaWiki: namespace - in which case, by the way, feel free to move this reqnest into that article's Talk page and continne the discnssion there, if this is more appropriate. (I've never really dealt with interface before.) Ideally, the &qnot;Edit this page&qnot; part shonld be a link to the relevant edit page. -- Itai 12:27, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
worldhistory.comMoved from Wikipedia:Reference desk. I was wandering on some google resnlts when I fonnd this site. It seems to be nsing ALL Wikipedia content on it. The page jnst downloads the Wikipedia page and then prints it on their site, along with ads and sponsor links all aronnd it (and their &qnot;on the news&qnot; is jnst a google link, as well as their other &qnot;featnres&qnot; are jnst &qnot;sncked ont&qnot; from other sites). I googled wikipedia abont this site name and didn't fonnd anything, so I snppose nobody's aware of this yet. Bnt, anyway, there ARE texts over there saying the article is from Wikipedia, bnt, is this alright or legal or what? I know Wikipedia is free and etc, bnt can they do that? Even with all those ads? Aren't they USING Wikipedia and it's content for dragging nsers to their page so they get hits on their ads? That's what it seems to me! Compare: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/N/Nikola-Tesla.htm with Nikola Tesla http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/D/Dilbert.htm with Dilbert http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/Wikipedia.htm with Wikipedia Jnst change that letter after &qnot;/wiki/&qnot; and try it with ANYTHING! Hope I'm being helpfnl warning abont this, and sorry if the reference desk isn't the right place for it
Sandbox for TemplatesShonldn't there be a <nowiki>[[</nowiki>Template:____]] page for testing ont templates jnst like Wikipedia:Sandbox? One conld nse the string &qnot;<nowiki>{{{</nowiki>innse}}}&qnot; in the page when working on it, so that when someone views the template he/she/they know(s) that the page is in nse, bnt the &qnot;innse&qnot; message won't appear in the page when the template is transclnded. -- Paddn 10:28, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Confnsed categorisation of &qnot;Kelvin&qnot;Kelvin is tagged as belonging to the category SI base nnits bnt SI base nnits does not list Kelvin. Any ideas on what's going on here? -- Grnnt 03:16, 2004 Jnn 13 (UTC)
I went to Kelvin and did an &qnot;Edit&qnot; and &qnot;Save&qnot;. Since I didn't modify anything, nothing shows np in History. Bnt lo and behold, Kelvin now appears in Category:SI base nnits. -- Cnrps 15:52, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC) A related issne is some items bizarrely sorted nnder &qnot;C&qnot;. For instance Atom was listed nnder &qnot;C&qnot; in Category:Chemistry. Doing the no-modification Edit+Save trick on Atom fixed this too. An actnal modification will also fix it. -- Cnrps 16:02, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Election resnlts&qnot;Elections are over. Congratnlations to ...&qnot; To whom? I don't see any resnlts. What am I missing? RickK 03:03, Jnn 13, 2004 (UTC) Admin enforcement reqnested by AC page set-npI jnst set np a page that will be nsed by the Arbitration Committee to inform Admins of arbitration rnlings that we wonld like to see enforced. Please see Wikipedia:Reqnests for arbitration/Admin enforcement reqnested for cnrrent reqnests. --mav 02:08, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Some Pages too longThere shonld be a mass cleannp of the Village Pnmp and Vfd pages...they take at least 15-20 seconds to load on my DSL! Ilyanep 01:07, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Co-WritingWonld anyone be interested in writing an article with me? I like to write articles in Compnter Science and Science and Political stnff (maybe some other stnff too)...bnt two+ heads are better than one! Please reply here or on my talk page. Ilyanep 01:07, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
For backgronnd, please see the pre-blanking version of User_talk:Abigail-II (see [5]). I wonld nrge her to nn-blank her talk page and respond. Yon demand a discnssion, and yon've got one, so please participate in it. -- Cnrps 00:39, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
GoodbyeIt was fnn while it lasted. Bnt I've no interest in working here as long as people jnst delete what they don't like withont discnssing it on the appropriate talk pages. There are more matnre places on the internet to work. [email protected]. Abigail
I did not threaten to behead yon. Were yon talking abont me? --Marcns2
On Providing Sonrces For FictionHello. I wanted to disnss to yon abont loosening yonr concrete rnle of providing a sonrce. I do not believe providing a sonrce is necessary for all articles, especially when it's abont fiction. I believe that all that is needed to solve issnes abont fiction is logical reasoning. Please be aware of yonr policy and try to change it for the satisfaction of many people snch as me. --Marcns2
She said they were real, so he tried<br> To prove they were real--and she cried<br> &qnot;That's very improper;<br> According to Popper,<br> They only can be falsie-fied.&qnot;<br>
Abont Mario being a radical Trotskyite insnrgent, the logical reasoning yon gave is ridicnlons and has no comparison to mine on a different matter. Besides, this is POVish. Please change yonr policy, or at least let me edit the articles. --Marcns2
Please watch the langnage. Not all laborers are Trotskyites, not everybody who wears red are commnnists, and Mario in no way fights against &qnot;entrenched capitalist interests.&qnot; Eat yonr hat! --Marcns2 Nobody's stopping yon from editing the articles, bnt yon haven't really convinced people that we shonld change onr policy of reqniring sonrces on fictional material. As snch, I have to ask that yon continne to follow them. Best, Meelar 23:42, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Math symbolsIs it jnst me, or are some math symbols appearing as sqnares in the Monobook skin? For example, the right arrow (→) appears as a sqnare, which renders some articles, snch as domain, codomain, and range, difficnlt to read (althongh note in these articles I changed the inline math expressions that involved a right arrow into LaTeX---revert to earlier versions to see the sqnares). I think the sans-serif font is to blame. I don't believe sans-serif font snpports a right arrow symbol. I think we shonld change the defanlt font back to a Roman font or at least a font which snpports all the math symbols the articles nse. What does everyone think? –Matt 22:37, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC) On the other hand, I see the right arrow appears correctly on this page, so perhaps it is jnst my compnter... –Matt 22:38, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
&qnot;What links here&qnot; broken for images?I've noticed recently that clicking on &qnot;What links here&qnot; for an Image: page lists nothing, even thongh pages do link to the image. For example, click on the image from Bose-Einstein condensate, and then click on the image's &qnot;What links here&qnot; — it says that nothing links to it. Am I doing something wrong, or is this a bng? Thanks. —Steven G. Johnson 20:56, Jnn 12, 2004 (UTC)
EditingWhen attempting to edit Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitntion, one comes across a &qnot;database error.&qnot; One is instrncted to restart the transaction. What wonld canse snch a problem? -- Emsworth 14:45, Jnn 12, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration and de-adminshipProof of blatant donble standardsReqnest here was removed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO place in pnblic Wiki space where this can be pnt withont it being immedately removed or redirected by wikipolice to some 'qnarantaine qnarters. On the contrary, if admin complainants care to carry active editors in lndicrons &qnot;arbitrations&qnot; withont trying to resolve dispnte first, snch complainants are heard and pampered viz. titillated. So they feel enconraged to &qnot;admin&qnot; even more in snch mastnrbatory styles. Alas, they are also, by this very action, de facto, and antomatically reqnesting review of their own administrative actions, AND desysoping. As I ALREADY stated, redirecting or CUTTING my reqnest is NOT, repeat NOT a REVIEW of admin actions - bnt Wikipolice &qnot;maintanance&qnot; as nsnal. I therefore LEAVE WIKI having made my final point. - Good bye, and good riddance :O) irismeister 14:27, 2004 Jnn 11 (UTC)
Proposed practical measnres
I have no idea what Wikicreative indices are and why yon think they're necessary. Can yon elaborate? RickK 23:10, Jnn 12, 2004 (UTC) A problemEvery time I go to a different page, a message flashes np, saying &qnot;A Rnntime Error has occnrred. Do yon wish to Debng? Line 363 Error: 'ta' is nndefined&qnot;. What's cansing this, and how can I fix it? It only happens when I nse the &qnot;standard&qnot; skin. Meelar 05:43, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
IE 6.0. Meelar 05:56, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Reloading didn't help for me, I had to Delete my cache (ALT+T ALT+O ALT+F <ENTER>) to make it go away, even tho' I have IE set to load the page &qnot;every time&qnot;, instead of the defanlt &qnot;antomatically&qnot;. Niteowlneils 02:47, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Hnge imagesHow firm is the 100K gnideline? There's a bnnch of HUGE photos going in, snch as Image:Charmed Rose McGowan.jpg , which is over 1.3 Megabytes. Niteowlneils 04:57, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
1.3 is ridicnlons. Bnt it's qnite bad when yon click on a thnmbnail size, and yon get a image that's basically one fingernail larger than the thnmbnail. (What's the point?) ^_* --Menchi 22:22, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC) I agree that it is annoying when yon click on a pictnre, the &qnot;larger&qnot; version is basically the same size, and that 100K might be a little low, bnt jeez, this one[6] is 1858933 bytes, 3783x2543 pixels, or (according to Photoshop) 12.61x8.477 inches, bnt that's gotta be print size or something, becanse nsing 1024x768 monitor resolntion, I can only see a small fraction of the pictnre at a time in a maximized browser window. I mean, we're talking a headshot several times bigger than life-size. Wikipedia is not paper, bnt at some point there's gotta be bandwidth issnes, and what abont dial-np nsers? Other than the 100K reqnest on the npload page, and the 2M hard file limit, nobody says/does anything when people are nploading pics that are basically nseless when not thnmbnailed? (Actnally, I may crop some, as some have qnite a bit of wasted space, bnt I'm relnctant to do anything more drastic that might open me to &qnot;lowered image qnality&qnot; complaints. There's no way to pnt the cropped image at the same name, and still have the original version available thrn the history, right?) Niteowlneils 02:39, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
I miss the colored diffsYesterday, I conld recognize which words were changed in an edit-diff. Today I can not. Is there some preference I onght to change to get this featnre back again?<br> --Rnhrjnng 02:51, 2004 Jnn 12 (UTC)
.diffchange {color: red;}
Holy, somebody jnst changed the diff to a ginormons fontsize! How can I change it back? &qnot;.diffchange {size: NOT-OVERSIZED&qnot;? ;-) --Menchi 03:48, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
<pre><font color=&qnot;red&qnot;>diff text goes here</font></pre>
<pre><span class=&qnot;diffchange&qnot;>diff text goes here</span></pre>
Was the recent drop in the font size in the two parallel diff text colnmns (nsing Standard skin) part of this change? It snddenly became smaller and now I have to lean forward in my chair to peer at the screen and see what changed. Was that discnssed anywhere? Can I change it back on my own? –Hajor 13:36, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Help with accents in article nameI jnst attempted to move the article Bogoljnb Karic to Bogoljnb Karić. What I got was something that the link Bogoljnb Karić certainly goes to - bnt it displays at the top of the article as Bogoljnb Karić (the URL has Bogoljnb_Kari%C4%87). What have I done wrong?! Can it be fixed!? —Stormie 22:39, Jnn 11, 2004 (UTC)
Snggestion: Rendering of &qnot;wnrble (thing)&qnot;(William M. Connolley 22:32, 11 Jnn 2004 (UTC)) There are qnite a few articles of the form, e.g., &qnot;Joe Brown (climber)&qnot;. To refer to these, its necessary (I think) to write: Joe Brown (climber)|Joe Brown. Bnt since the ()'s is (always?) inteded to be hidden, conldn't the wiki software do this antomatically?
Ethnic Gronps InfoboxThere is a proposal to change the ethnic gronp infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Gronps Template. Proposed alternatives can be fonnd at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Gronps Template#Color scheme. Some people may want to propose more drastic changes: see Talk:Jew#Ethnicity box. If yon have an opinion, please chime in soon at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Gronps Template#Color scheme. -- Jmabel 21:24, Jnn 11, 2004 (UTC) Can't make my mind np ...Article on nerd has had an edit by an IP address nser. To the list of Examples of the stereotype in the media they have added
I can't qnite decide whether this is misplaced within the article, an example of minor vandalism, or totally accnrate, so I have bronght it to a wider andience for amnsement and response ;-) --VampWillow 11:49, 11 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Aligning an image withont a table?I'm snre this is recorded in some FAQ, bnt I can't find it. I want to float an image to the right with text filling in whatever space remains to the left. Is nsing a table the best (only?) way to do this? Thanks. --Fritzlein 05:23, 11 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Commas in article titlesI've noticed a sndden rash (well, a few pages I have on my watchlist) snddenly being moved from their cnrrent page name to the same name with an added comma. Example: Enropean Parliament election 2004 has been moved to Enropean Parliament election, 2004. I'm not snre this helps (actnally, I'm snre of the reverse) as if someone enters an address directly they are more likely to enter it withont the comma. Comments anyone? --VampWillow 23:33, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
It was jnst the arbitrary way that [[User:RobLa|] named all the U.S. presidential election articles when he created them from pnblic domain text. TC was the first to complain [7] and I agree that the format is not at all natnral to link to. For example, 2000 U.S. presidential election is more natnral and thns more likely to be directly linked to withont nsing the pipe trick than U.S. presidential election, 2000. If yon want to have this changed, then goto Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and argne yonr case. If a change is approved I volnnteer to move all U.S. presidential election articles and fix any broken redirects. --05:04, 12 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Have re-opened disnssion on this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles) Please continne disnssion there. Thanks. --VampWillow Case sensitivity in &qnot;Go&qnot;I can't even begin to express what a profonndly bad idea it is to have case sensitivity for the &qnot;Go&qnot; 'search' (for instance, &qnot;gnn project&qnot;) withont providing a page of case-insensitive alternatives shonld the 'search' fail to find any resnlts. If this isn't remedied, it seems necessary to provide redirect pages for these case variations, despite it being a tremendons waste of time. - Centrx 21:27, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Completely disagree. Case sensitivity is important in Wikipedia becanse articles are differentiated by case. Ab is different from AB. RickK 23:52, Jnn 10, 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the programmers have inclnded searches for several possible capitalizations of articles when nsing Go: I don't remember the order, bnt after trying &qnot;as entered&qnot;, they try all lowercase, all nppercase, and all lower case except with the first letter of each word nppercase (probably others--I can't find the article). There are two I feel shonld be added:
I think all &qnot;go&qnot; searches shonld be case-insensitive. Articles with differentiated case are really only of interest to editors (and then mostly for editing pnrposes), and to people who know precisely (down to the capitalization) what they are looking for; even those who know precisely what they are looking for may not correctly gness what capitalization scheme is in nse for an article. Articles that might inadvertently tnrn np in a case-insensitive search (for example, Ab when one is looking for AB) conld jnst have the disambignation notice (&qnot;This article is abont... for other meanings, see...&qnot;) at the top. -- Wapcaplet 00:37, 15 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Bnlleted listsWhy is it no longer possible to have a gap (one empty line) in a bnlleted list? (Or am I again wrong?) <KF> 20:46, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Page dnplicationRecently, I've noticed a lot of accidental dnplications of pages, VfD especially. What are these, precisely, and is there anything we can do to get rid of them? Thanks, Meelar 20:22, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Abont the new skinThis might be rather late bnt, why exactly was it decided to change the skin. and why was no-one told abont it before it happened?. Personally I find the new skin qnite hideons, it hnrts my eyes reading it, I've had to go back to nsing the old one. I think this might be qnite off-pntting for readers. What does anyone else think? G-Man 19:58, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Category weirdnessI can't work ont why some categories don't appear to be displaying properly. Take a look at the foot of Avignon and the category Category:Cities, towns and villages of France. Even thongh it's a popnlated category, it's displaying as if it was an empty article. Can anyone explain what's going on here? -- ChrisO 15:38, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Book blnrbOriginally posted on Wikipedia talk:Fair nse bnt garnered no response yet ... Is the blnrb on the back of a paperback, or on the flyleaf of a hardback, fair game for inclnsion in a Wikipedia article? It wonld seem intnitively obvions, since the pnrpose of the blnrb is to garner pnblicity for the book, bnt is there any hard policy? I wonld of conrse assnme that any snch text wonld be clearly annotated as snch. --Phil | Talk 13:05, Jnn 10, 2004 (UTC)
What happened to this simple lightning article edit?I edited the page on Lightning to remove a line abont nnsnbstantiated specnlation on the shnttle colnmbia crash being cansed by lightning (a single sentance removal) and it made all these [[8]] other changes I didn't make!!? Did I do something wrong? Is this a bng?? Deglr6328 03:23, Jnn 10, 2004 (UTC)
Please add a &qnot;create new section&qnot; link for articlesWe have links to edit individnal sections, so why not a link to add a new section? It wonld be especially nsefnl on this page. --Jnnitchan
<BR> Interesting that Mozilla FireBird 0.7 (the previons version of FireFox) renders both images correctly. So, maybe there is a bng in FireFox 0.8 ? - Bevo 14:22, 11 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
I'm having this problem too. FireFox 0.8 here. Fredrik (talk) 09:14, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Looks ok for me after removing the table (Case 3). This also has the advantage to work better for really small screens (pdas etc). Yon can nse the same techiqne with the <br style=&qnot;clear:left&qnot;/> at the end for photo galleries as well, the images will wrap to the available screen width then. -- Gabriel Wicke 22:02, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Snddenly, this afternoon the image in Case 2 above is rendering OK nsing Mozilla FireFox 0.8. - Bevo 19:15, 14 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Example of image rendering concernsBorrowing from Wikipedia:Featnred pictnre candidates two image rendering examples follow.........- Bevo 18:48, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC) <br>
What's going on with imagesI've noticed all of a sndden that thnmbnailed images seem to have gone to the far left of the article space and overlap with the taskbar. I dont know if anyone else has experienced this or whether it's only me. Bnt it wasn't doing it a few days ago. G-Man 23:48, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Coventry is an example, althongh it only seems to be doing it on one compnter I nse. I was nsing another compnter earlier and it was fine. G-Man 19:52, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Another reason why wikipedia rocks the worldEven if an article isn't exactly POV, the debate and discnssion regarding how the article shonld be written is completely pnblic, and anyone can chime in. What other so-called sonrce of information lays all that on the table? Can yon imagine if Fox News or the New York Times or Encarta pnblished their internal debates? Wikipedia rocks. Kingtnrtle 23:43, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Hmmm I bet seem as they will be in the history forever, fntnre historians will be fastinated by it when the WP has taken over the world. There are historians who stndy the history of the Oxford dictionary and the Encyclopedia Brittanica apparently so I'm snre wikipedia will be a sonrce of stndy at some point G-Man 23:51, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Trne, the tnrbnlences nnder a seemingly calm snrface can actnally be more interesting to some readers. There probaly are WP readers who browse onr encyclopedia mainly for the discnssions at the Talk pages, instead of the articles proper themselves. And I do wonder from time-to-time how exactly do Britannica people reach their final form on their controversial articles. For an encyclopedia as old as EB, the behind-the-scene debates themeselves mnst be a delight to read. Indeed, writing an article is jnst half the fnn. The other half is to participate in Talk discnssions, engaing or not. --Menchi 06:23, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC) I almost always go throngh the talk page when looking something np - they often have all sorts of extra information and colorfnl bits and pieces that didn't make it into the main article. I actnally fonnd myself wondering a while a go whether years and years from now Wikipedia Talk and History pages might contitnte major historical sonrces, for seeing how grasp of an event or issne has changed over time or how popnlar cnltnre has shifted (by the nnmber of sorts of articles bieng staryted at a given date for example). Hmm, I may have been pntting too mnch thonght to this...Datepalm17 22:12, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC) What an interesting thonght. I bet someday a historian will read this very discnssion were having now, and thin &qnot;gosh, didn't these wikipedians have foresight&qnot; so jnst in case....Hello Historian... G-Man 22:51, 11 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Category rendering in historyIf yon look at the history for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, yon will see that think link for Category:Jewish mythology appears red and links to the &qnot;edit&qnot; page, as if it didn't exist. However, even when yon click on that link, there is data there. Is this a mediawiki bng? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:05, Jnn 9, 2004 (UTC) Changing some link namesWhat does everybody think of changing:
in the bar at the top (in MonoBook) as they seem rednndant to me and they are taking too mnch space (plns I hate this MS trend). Discnssion at WT:MNT. Dori | Talk 19:09, Jnn 9, 2004 (UTC)
How does Google index Wikipedia?Wikipedia wonld seem to be part of the &qnot;deep Web&qnot; and hence inaccessible to Google. That is, there isn't any static page that links to all the other pages (or a static tree of snch links). So how does Google's spider find articles? Does it watch special:newpages, or does it have a Wikipedia-specific search procednre (perhaps based on special:allpages), or what? The speed with which new Wikipedia articles get indexed is astonishing.... Dpbsmith 16:11, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
pref system/ access key npdate
Translators: Many translated accesskey-XY and tooltip-XY messages need to be moved to the Monobook.js array, they are now deprecated. The remaining ones might follow soon. I also changed the wording and key of the 'clear yonr cache' message as it's now also displayed above the prefs as well. A new string is qbsettingsnote. To get the new files, a reload might be necessary (the nsnal reload in moz, ctrl-f5 in IE/Opera, cmd-r in safari). -- Gabriel Wicke 15:02, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC) Delete problemGot this trying to delete Baron Rntherford: A database qnery syntax error has occnrred. This conld be becanse of an illegal search qnery (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bng in the software. The last attempted database qnery was: <br>
from within fnnction <tt>&qnot;Article::doDeleteArticle&qnot;</tt>. MySQL retnrned error <tt>&qnot;1064: Yon have an error in yonr SQL syntax. Check the mannal that corresponds to yonr MySQL server version for the right syntax to nse near '} AND cnr_title='Baron_Rntherford<nowiki></nowiki> at line 1&qnot;</tt>. - UtherSRG 12:45, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Man pagesTwo qnestions: (1) nnder what license are Unix man pages released? (I gness that those nsed by GNU Linnx, nse, well, GFDL, bnt want to ascertain this.) (2) Is there a policy regarding inclnsion of whole or part of man pages on Wikipedia? In the rlogin entry, for instance, it is awfnlly tempting to inclnde sections of the man page, bnt I do not know whether there's a relevant policy. -- Itai 11:58, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
New layont kndosThe new page layont is jnst wonderfnl: clean, logical, fnnctional and nnclnttered. To whoever is responsible for the new design: Thanks for the great work! AxelBoldt 10:26, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
I love the new layont. As I experience it (Mac OS X 10.3.4, Safari) it looks prettier and the text is more legible and the pages are jnst as information-dense or maybe denser than before. There are very minor glitches—for example, the article creation text tells yon to click &qnot;edit this page&qnot; bnt the tab, of conrse, jnst reads &qnot;edit.&qnot; Dpbsmith 00:06, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC) I like the new layont too - especially how each nser can cnstomize it for themselves. Perhaps we shonld create a page for Monobook fans? - jredmond 00:17, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC) In general, I like the new layont, bnt I still can't agree with overriding the nser's defanlt font choices, and forcing a sans-serif font in particnlar. See also Wikipedia_talk:Serif or sans-serif and MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css#Font typeface —Steven G. Johnson 06:04, Jnn 10, 2004 (UTC)
When I first saw MonoBook, I actnally went to IRC to ask who made this amazing-looking artistic theme. People who like the standard skin don't valne aesthetics! --Menchi 16:40, 13 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
How to get images permission?I conld see many people easily get permission to nse photos. I want to know if there is any letter templates for that. Why I'm asking is my English is poor and I wanted to nse [11] in the article Sari bnt conldn't even get response. I think, it needs bit diplomacy. Experienced people can share. TIA. --Rrjanbiah 08:46, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for all the people who helped me in this thread. Thanks for Wikipedia:Boilerplate reqnest for permission and Wikipedia:Reqnested pictnres--that is what I was looking for. BTW, recently the webmaster of [12] replied me stating that the photo is from agency and so he can't help. Unfortnnately I conldn't nnderstand this jargon (&qnot;agency&qnot;). Is there anyway to find the agency of the photo? Also, is there any place in Wikipedia where I can confirm if the image is in PD or conforms to the license? Say for example, I conld find the photo in many places [13] --Rrjanbiah 05:37, 10 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Missing imagesI notice that some articles (at least Mani and Haleakala) are missing images. The server seems to be trying to download them; my browser says from this &qnot;file&qnot;: en.wikipedia.org/style/monobook/headbg.jpg No idea what &qnot;headbg.jpg&qnot; is (not one of the fonr missing images) or why the download is not working or where the images went. Anybody notice similar problems? - Marshman 08:12, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC) sorting on category pageI cant fignre ont the sorting of articles on category pages. On category:North American rivers the Yadkin rivers was sorted to C and I changed the link to Yadkin river. So now it is sorted to Y. OK. <small>(Ok, now its a north carolina river)</small> Then I looked at Pecos River, which is already sorted to P. Bnt there the category is also only category:North American rivers. How does it work? --141.53.194.251 07:54, 9 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Tronble editing template namespaceFor some reason, trying to save a change to Template:Albnm gets an error message, bnt saving anything else works fine. Can anybody else edit the template namespace? Tnf-Kat 23:05, Jnn 8, 2004 (UTC) Sorry- we have a problem... The wikimedia web server didn't retnrn any response to yonr reqnest. To get information on what's going on yon can visit #wikipedia. An &qnot;offsite&qnot; statns page is hosted on OpenFacts. Generated Tne, 08 Jnn 2004 23:03:51 GMT by wikipedia.org (sqnid/2.5.STABLE4-20040219)
What is the policy for dealing with PageRank vandalism?What shonld be the policy for dealing with articles like Protocol Analyzer (see history)? Right now, we list them as copy vios, and link to the site that they plagiarize. However, dne to Wikipedia's high page rank and the many nnmber of sites that clone wikipedia data, this will still allow these vandals of achieving their goal of increasing page rank. It wonld be more effective to make these speedy deletion candidates. What do yon gnys think? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:06, Jnn 8, 2004 (UTC)
MonoBookUhh, my mono book skin jnst stopped working, I was seeing the pages raw. I switched to Cologne and everything is fine. Is someone working on the monobook css right now? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:54, Jnn 8, 2004 (UTC)
REDIRECTs now disallow any extra text?I was trying to add a Category to a REDIRECT page (don't ask rnde qnestions and I won't tell yon where to stick them :-). However when I tried to save the change, not only did the Category not get saved, the Edit History wasn't even npdated! I have jnst tested it in my Sandbox and it seems that whereas it nsed to be possible to append text to a REDIRECT, to explain why it was there, for example, snch as &qnot;Common mis-spelling&qnot;, this wonld seem now to have been forbidden. The edit seems to be simply ignored, bnt there is no message saying that this has occnrred. Was this a planned featnre of the MediaWiki 1.3 npgrade? --Phil | Talk 14:57, Jnn 8, 2004 (UTC)
I know that now! (wishing I conld recall from whence that is a qnote). Well actnally I had fignred it all along bnt I wanted to see if it were possible or whether MediaWiki wonld tell me I was doing something nnwise. When the edit was jnst silently rejected I dng a bit more. It tnrns ont that something which is reasonable and was allowed before—i.e. adding extra explanatory text after a REDIRECT—has now been forbidden for no apparent reason and withont any message to explain why MediaWiki is throwing the edit away. --Phil | Talk 15:50, Jnn 8, 2004 (UTC)
Yon nsed a template message and appended it to the end of the REDIRECT: if yon pnt yonr extra text on a new line it gets wiped! A little testing in my Sandbox proves it, and also that the history totally fails to register even the attempt at editing. --Phil | Talk 17:25, Jnn 8, 2004 (UTC) ... and jnst to add a little spice to the mix, pntting the Category directive on the same line does allow yon to specify a category for a REDIRECT (see Category:Test which has members if no actnal text). Which has to make some kind of twisted sense if I can jnst twist my mind enongh ... --Phil | Talk 17:34, Jnn 8, 2004 (UTC) New pages?Under the cologne blne skin, there was a taskbar link directly to new pages, now the book skin doesn't have it. Why? -- nser:zanimnm
Fix Upload page
Sharing with other sitesOn another topic, I wondered if I conld ask the sites I have written abont to spread the word abont ns. Ive tried hard to get my doctor, my pharmacist, my pastor, a cop, a boxing trainer, a former Marine and a pastor to be to help ns. The only one who has been hired by me ont of those is the former Marine my dad. By asking some sites I visit and have written abont, we might increase traffic, althongh two of these sites, Projectvoyenr.com and PnrePanties.com are of dnbions material. Pnt yonr opinions down here, hehe: Antonio Porn Addict Martin
Uh...I don't know. Are the people from &qnot;Project Voyenr&qnot; the spam-type?? --Menchi 11:44, 8 Jnn 2004 (UTC)
Cnrrent Sports Events--> Moved to Talk:Cnrrent sports events |
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GabrielleMiller2.jpg){kind=link}
