Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question or MediaWiki Help instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Can someone review this?

Can someone review this: [1], please?

And, does someone understand what happened?

To me it looks like it's edits by multiple unregistered users who all live in Toronto, Canada (i.e. right next to each other), is it some sort of Wiki edit party? Also, is it neutral? Thanks, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbelieavable , I actually see some major pretty neutral good contribution to an article done by some anon. I will stop from this day to filter out the registered user from vandal proof and will lit a candle to the neerest Cathedral.

Needless to say I'm in shock from now and my faith in humanity has been renewed. — Esurnir 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably a longtime user who's too lazy to log in. ;-) Dcoetzee 07:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are multiple intermediate IP addresses that aren't shown. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for a female model

If you are a woman with a camera and an extensive enough wardrobe:

Some of the articles for items worn (such as camiknickers and alice band) could use photos of a model wearing them.

In my personal opinion, it would be a good idea if all of the clothing and accessories articles had photos of the same model wearing each of the items, except for items customarily worn only by the opposite gender.

I wonder who would be our WikiModel?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.66.45 (talk • contribs)

That would be an expensive role to fill ! :-) Sancho 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not expecting @#$% Gisele or her ilk to fill the role, of course. Nearly any woman in her 20's, and most women in their 30's would be suitable. You don't have to be beautiful to model for this purpose. Why would you have to be? The aim is not to sell anything (or to sell anyone on anything).

No, I meant it would be expensive for the model to get access to all of the clothing and accessories that have articles on Wikipedia. Sancho 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For cost-effectiveness, I nominate Wikipe-tan. –Pomte 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already asked User:Kasuga about this. He said he would make such drawings if necessary. What say you?

Manikin. — RJH (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Woman.

Why can't models be past their 30s? SharkD 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What to do when article deletion policy does not seem to be followed?

What do you do when the proper proceedure does not seem to have been followed in an article deletion? The article on Disappearance of the Universe had a deletion discussion already, and the conclusion was to not delete it. It's now been deleted without even having been marked for speedy deletion.

I find the book to be an annoying book by an annoying idiot, but judging by sales figures for it and the sequel, a significant book. The criteria for quick deletion fail, and in any case, were not even involed. Gene Ward Smith 04:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the Articles for Deletion discussion? I can't seem to find it. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 05:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't one for the book, only the author. Relevant dialog here. The article about the author was kept at AFD, but later redirected to the book article, which was deleted. I've already asked Pilotguy to restore the article.--Chaser - T 05:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is still gone. Where do I go to get the attention of an administrator? Gene Ward Smith 23:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pilotguy's page indicates that he's gone on a wikibreak. The article looks like it could use a lot of work, but it's not obviously non-notable (especially if it's had good sales as Gene indicates) so I'm going to undelete it. Bryan Derksen 06:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article on Renard's successful spam campaign when the book moved to a bigger publisher:

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA508787.html Gene Ward Smith 07:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This item appears resolved. User:Pilotguy speedy-deleted the the article on the book The Disappearance of the Universe. on 13 June 2007 with the comment "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity". It is not clear why he would have chosen speedy deletion to deal with an article with such a long history and so many contributors. Then, as a result of this WP:VPA posting, User:Bryan Derksen undeleted the article. Since the book article was deleted on Pilotguy's own initiative, and there is no current AfD open or even any Talk page discussion running, I see nothing more to do here. User:Chaser has already notified Pilotguy that there is a VPA discussion of this deletion. In terms of earlier history, there was an AfD on Gary Renard which closed with a Keep in June 2006. Gary Renard remains a redirect to the book article. All the useful info from the author article seems to have been merged into the book article (you can still see the history under the redirect). Now that we can trace exactly what happened, WP:DRV would have been a more orthodox way to handle the undeletion than WP:VPA. Anyone who still has concerns about the article quality can comment at Talk:The Disappearance of the Universe. EdJohnston 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

" Images"

How would you enter a image into Wikipedia? And how do you type in the proper components as to mkae the image seen alike any other posted?

See Wikipedia:Images. If Wikipedia does not yet have a copy of the image, you need to upload it (link on the left sidebar). Once that's done, you insert the code into the article. Look at the source code of other articles to see how it's done. For example,

[[Image:Example.png|thumb|300px|Images are cool!]]

gives you this:

Images are cool!

YechielMan 21:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have something to add to this. A question, that is. I want to show this image on my user page, but since the outcome is different for every computer, I cannot just save the image and then upload it. Is there a way I can use or upload the image but still get the unique result? (You have to click the link to see the result. Then you can also refresh the page for a different result. Questions about all of this? Ask them.) Thanks. ---Signed By KoЯnfan71 (User Page—My Talk) 00:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what to do with apparent COI at Scientology

I've let myself get drawn into an edit war over on Scientology with User:COFS who I believe, as a self-described Scientologist, has a clear conflict of interest. I'm going to step back from editing and posting on Talk:Scientology for a while, in the hope that everyone's tempers can cool a little, but if a more experienced editor could review the situation, I would appreciate any offer of advice (to anyone involved). Thanks! SheffieldSteel 23:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As the Scientologists have a notorious history of tightly managing their public image, it is hardly a surprise that they would continue such practices on wikipedia. Given the open nature of wikipedia, I'm not sure what can be done. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently pursuing a resolution through community enforcement. Thanks for your reply. SheffieldSteel 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For related, information, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Smee 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

• The community enforcement discussion is at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:COFS. Smee 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Signature

I see that signatures have recently been limited to 255 characters. Is there a way for me to still use this signature: ---Signed By:[[Korn|<span style="color:#FF0000;">KoЯn</span>]]<span style="color:#000000;">fan71</span><small>([[User:Kornfan71|<span style="color:#FF0000;">User Page</span>]]—[[User talk:Kornfan71|<span style="color:#FF0000;">My Talk</span>]]—[[Special:Contributions/Kornfan71|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Contibs]])</small>

It has 326 characters with spaces, so you know. Thanks! ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71(User Page—My Talk) 00:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes.. but do you really need to? –Pomte 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've shortened it down to:

—Signed By:[[Korn|<font color="red">KoЯn</font>]]<b/>fan71<small>([[User:Kornfan71|<font color="red">User Page</font>]]—[[User talk:Kornfan71|<font color="red">My Talk</font>]]—[[Special:Contributions/Kornfan71|<font color="red">Contribs</font>]])</small>

But it's still six characters over the limit. To get it within the limit, you would need to alter the signature, perhaps by removing the contributions link, or by having 'fan71' link to your userpage instead of the 'User Page' link. You could also consider abbreviating the words used or removing some of the colour. Tra (Talk) 01:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Pomte. I was able to slim it down a little more, then count it in Microsoft Word. It came it as 254 characters! ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71(User Page—My Talk) 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. I'll just have to go with Tra's plan. Too many characters again! So this is my sig. ---Signed By KoЯnfan71 (User Page—My Talk) 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone improve this article: 2007 Chinese slave scandal?

Thanks.--Linuxwindows 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just translated first paragraph. --Wrightbus 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex

Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is in Category:Anime films even though it's just a series, does anyone know how to fix this because it isn't possible to just edit away the category. Thanks, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No one wants to help? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Republic NPOV or consensus

I am having trouble at List of Republics and Republic articles about other information. The clique that guards these articles won't let me enter Sparta as a republic even after I quote Paul A. Rahe and have an historical list with Sparta labelled as a Republic. Even Niccolo Machiavelli called Sparta a republic----but they always revert.

Now, User:Pmanderson has reverted me on the Republic article and his reason is "per consensus". Where is this in Wikipedia policy? Can someone explain? I thought the WP policy was NPOV and verifiability. I have the references---but they won't allow any edit to being done because of "per consensus". That is NOT NPOV! That is censorship by a clique!

Can some adminstrators look into this please! Maybe Jimmy Wales can be of some assistance? Are things done at Wikipedia by Verifiability and NPOV or "PER CONSENSUS"?WHEELER 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad, there is a policy of "consensus". It seems I have been taken out of the loop. I have been diktated to!!! Amazing. So I must please consensus, a group!!!! OHHHHHHHHH, Censorship! I love it. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy BUUUUUTTTTTTTTT You must have consensus! OHHHHHH what hypocrisy!! I get it now. Can this clique of consensus show themselves and vote here. Let the Clique expose themselves. I love this! What hypocrisy. If you have "Per consensus" what difference does it make how many references I put out! NONE! It makes NO sense! I mean how silly is this that "Per Consensus" trumps verifiability and NPOV. How can you have NPOV when it is "per consensus"? Illogical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You guys are really funny. WHEELER 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy have things changed around here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHEELER 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for assistance? Please make it clear what you want. Sancho 19:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see this is just a copy and paste from your post at that article's discussion page... I responded there with some guidance... you haven't been taken out of the loop, you've just started to participate in it... give it some time, talk with the other editors, and you'll probably be happy with the end result. Sancho 19:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so kindly for your response. Hopefully this brings it to somebody's attention. I am open to negotiation. I had a negotiation with Kim Bruning many moons ago. The agreement was that the Republic article had the Modern meaning and in the intro there was a short description and a link to the Classical definition of republic. That was the Old set up at Wikipedia. The Classical definition of republic got deleted many moons ago.WHEELER 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that this issue has been happily resolved and WP grew through the process (if not I learned a lot). Congratulations! --Kevin Murray 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In some way it has been resolved but somebody really needs to talk to User:Pmanderson on the List_of_republics#Other_meanings_of_Republic he has got the Roman Empire. Now if that is not the MOST silliest thing I have ever seen or heard of. Can someone please talk with this man. I changed it to Roman Republic and he changes it back to Roman Empire. Come on people that is not right!WHEELER 01:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why you need to continue this discussion on this page. Corvus cornix 01:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Other meanings of Republic

For the archaizing meanings of the word republic, as the commonwealth, or as a translation of politeia or res publica, see those articles.

These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of republic, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following monarchies:

• Sparta
• the Roman Empire
• Elizabethan England
• the Ancien Régime in France

Since the Oxford English Dictionary last cites this meaning from 1684, it is difficult to tell to which present states it would have been applied.

I want everyone at Wikipedia to take a long good look at the above section, "Other meanings of republic" and if that is not the most stupidiest and insane sections I have ever seen. Do you really think Mr. Conix that that is a good example of Scholarship and professionality? I think this needs to be spread around. I think a lot of people need to see that. First off "Archaizing" the meaning. Mr. Pmanderson lost the argument and now he writes it. And so right off the bat, he slants the content as "archaizing". Then he calls Sparta a Monarchy. Did Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero, Niccolas Macciavelli, or John Adams call Sparta a monarchy? No. Yet in the Past 24 hours NOT A SINGLE WP admin has commented on the talk page and this stuff remains. The Roman Empire is really a Republic? Why is called "Empire"? I changed it back to "Roman Republic" and he reverts me. Is that not the most supersilliest thing you have ever heard? Rome is Republic because it is Mixed; NOT because it didn't have kings. Do you all suffer from reading comphrension here? Why is a modern defintion transported back into time? When the Latins NEVER considered the definition of a republic as "not with a king". That is NOWHERE in Classical literature! If you don't find that above section silly, then I feel sorry for you people. This is an example of why you are the laughing stock in my book. That is one sick section.

Furthermore, Pmanderson lost the argument. But then HE gets to write the info. He lies on the Republic article when he reverts and says he has consensus. He never engaged in negotiation. He doesn't accept any reference. He doesn't produce any, but he is allowed to continue to control everything. Nothing has changed since I left. A clique still runs things at Wikipedia and Admin don't step in and correct this guy.

So, Mr. cornix, I think that above section needs to be publicly presented. I think that section needs the light of day.WHEELER 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And why do you think this is a better forum than any of the choices at Dispute resolution? Corvus cornix 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If "consensus" now runs everything at Wikipedia, what makes you think, "consensus" at Dispute resolution will do? Nada-nothing. Consensus rules. If consensus rules, so does the Clique. And it is obvious that the "Clique" are not going to go after one of their own. That is just common sense. What good is it going to do? nothing. I have ton of references that neither User:SimonP, nor User:Pmanderson, nor any of the other Users will accept. So what basis is there? None. Clique control, that is what consensus is.WHEELER 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Admin ship

Hey, recently, the USS Adminship or whatever it is called (the image of the ship you get when you are an admin) disappeared from my userpage, and now I can't work out how to make it reappear or even where it went! It normally appears to the left of "I, Tony the Marine, hereby award...etc" in my "awards recieved" drop down bar (about 3 or 4 bars down on my main user page), it should appear just as the other images do on the other awards I have there, but it doesn't. Could someone take a look and find out why? If I replace the image with another in the code it works fine, and there is nothing wrong with the image itself when I go and look at it on other userpages, it is just on my userpage. Could someone have a go with it? SGGH ^speak! 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed it myself SGGH ^speak! 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP IN SNAKES

Please help to create more lists (Example: List of snakes in Missouri or List of snakes in Colorado). Only 8 lists are made so far. Please help make more.

§→Nikro 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How about List of snakes on a plane? *Dan T.* 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

List of snakes on a plane? Now, that really is indisciminate information, and snakes appearing on a plane doesn't occur very often to generate a reasonably sized list.--Kylohk 13:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Except when Samuel L. Jackson is around. *Dan T.* 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Third-Party to Summarize AfD

The debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series has somewhat wandered. It would be a great help if someone who is not involved in the debate could summarize the keep and delete arguments to get things back on track. Vagary 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User page error

although i receive a new message alert but no message appear.also some of my message had also been deleted.User talk:Yousaf465

Your user talk looks fine now to me. No worries.--Kylohk 14:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Template page help requested

We are in need of help at Template:Freemasonry2. What we are trying to do is create a "nested" series of collapsable sections and sub-section in our template/info box... ie we would like to have a collapsable sub-section within a collapsed section. It seems so logical an idea, that I am sure it can be done... but none of us know how to do it. If I am not clear, see our discussions near the bottom of Template talk:Freemasonry2. Thanks. Blueboar 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

page in the bin

I am hardly ever active on en:, and I do not know how to get rid of a page in my namespace. I made a copy of a page in the nl:Wikipedia, that became very succesfull there, but it didn't do enything here. See: User:Quichot/Hotlist, as a copy of nl:Wikipedia:Hotlist gewenste artikelen.

How can I get this page out of en:Wikipedia. It s useless when nobody thinks it's usefull? ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quichot (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See How to delete a user subpage. -- MarcoTolo 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hallvard Graatop article

I'd like some seasoned editor with a background in history to review the article and discussion referred to in the header, to get an unbiased third-party opinion. I feel that the discussion goes to the core of what Wikipedia is and should be. leifbk 08:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with the sourcing. Left a comment at Talk:Hallvard Graatop. EdJohnston 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New User Study Guide

I'm creating a list of different Wikipedia tasks in the order of complexity, I'm not sure that this is the correct place for this but please feel free to add something: New User Study Guide. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good, why don't you people have a look. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 12:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird references-related editing glitch

Can anyone tell me what happened here, and how I can fix it? I was trying to add references and I ended up causing the the end of the article to disappear. --P4k 04:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of <ref name="asdf" /ref>, do <ref name="asdf" />. –Pomte 05:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --P4k 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

external link situation in Świnoujście

Prof. Erwin Rosenthal, who is not a registered user on any wikipedia as far as I know, nor contribute anonymously to expanding/refining article texts, is persistently re-adding an external link to his website (and on other language versions, as well). As far as I can tell, this link, albeit it contains some valueable information, serves only to promote his website. I have corresponded wiht him (see the talk page of the Polish Wikipedia's interwiki artilce, pl:Dyskusja:Świnoujście, asking his persmission to add content to that article based on his webpage (which would add his name and the webpage as a citation to the bibliography/references), but he has refused. It's either include an external link to his site, or nothing, and on the English Wikipedia, it is include his link brooking no opposition.

I think his adding the link to his website falls under conflict of interest section of WP:EL as well as under its "no links to webpages for the purpose of promoting the webpage". It would be nice to have him participate in Wikipedia or be able to include the information he has gathered in the Wikipedia articles, but that does not seem to be an option.

The site does include Google text advertisements, and Prof. Rosenthal says, that he makes money off of it in order to recoup expenses of his research, etc.

I would suggest that instead of linking to nonofficial sites, we wlink to

http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/Poland/Voivodships/Zachodniopomorskie/Localities/Swinoujscie/

Professor's webpage is already listed under the German-language and the Polish-language versions there, and he could add it to the English one. Linking to DMOZ would be an equitable way to solve this conflict, and such a solution is described as viable in WP:EL.

Since I could not reach an agreement with Prof. Rosenthal, and he has overcome my reverts of his adding the website - and I don't want to contravene WP:3RR, could other editors assist here?

--Mareklug ^talk 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The person who keeps re-adding the link does not appear cooperative, but the link itself looks rather harmless and does not have an objectionable amount of advertising in my opinion. The DMOZ link looks helpful as well. You might consider asking for semi-protection if you can establish a consensus on the article Talk page that the disputed link does not belong. EdJohnston 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Images and permissions

Hi. A few weeks ago I was looking on Flickr for photos for our articles on Survivor contestants, and I noticed that Rupert Boneham had what looked like a promotional photo from the series (Image:Survivor rupert Photo.jpg). This would not be an acceptable use of such an image, and I would have tagged it as such, like I did with some others that day, but I noticed that the photo was uploaded by User:Jimmyswan, whose edits indicated that he was Mr. Boneham's manager. Two similar photos were uploaded, the second at Image:Rupert-boneham.jpg. User:Jimmyswan's tag on the photos was Template:PD-self, which I found rather unlikely. To clarify the situation, I found the contact information for Mr. Boneham, whose agent is indeed named Jimmy Swan, and sent an e-mail inquiring about the status of the photo. I explained the situation regarding this photo, and mentioned that if the license was in fact incorrect we would be happy to accept another photo with a correct license. I never received a reply, but just today I noticed that User:Jimmyswan returned last week for the first time since he uploaded the photos last September. He replaced one copy of the previous image at Image:Rupert-boneham.jpg and created another at Image:Rupert -head.jpg, both listed as Template:PD-self again, but with a more plausible description.

Is everything here fine, or should I do something? It's obviously a professional photo, and claims to be, but I guess in theory we have no proof that User:Jimmyswan is indeed Mr. Boneham's manager. I could send a copy of my original e-mail to OTRS, but I never got a reply, though it was obviously read and responded to. --Maxamegalon2000 02:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My take is that you should IFD the images. I see two ways that this would work. The more transparent and least problematic is that Swan puts the images up on his own site and states that they are released under a free license. The second is that his identity as the copyright owner is confirmed by an administrator. So he would send an email to either an admin or OTRS from an email identifiably his, and the admin then states on the user talk page that he has received an email that provides enough superficial information to state that the user is who he says he is. The implicit confirmation of you sending an email to the official email address and an apparent response in editing is not enough, IMO. Once you have confirmation, I would also add {{Notable Wikipedian}} to Talk:Rupert Boneham so everyone knows what is going on and the potential COI. In fact, under the username policy, Jimmyswan (talk · contribs) should be blocked as possible impersonation, but you might want to hold off until matters are clarified.

If you're feeling energetic, you could also clarify who owns the pictures and if that is different from the author. "Rupert Boneham Head shoot taken by Ben Murray, Given full permission for to use freely" - seems to state that Ben Murray is the author, but I guess he did so as an employee of Swan, so Swan would be the owner. Therefore the person who has "given full permission" is a bit of a question. If Swan's identity is confirmed and can use sourcing like "Photo taken by Ben Murray under contract to Jimmy Swan. Swan released the image into the public domain", that would erase the question mark over these images. - BanyanTree 22:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll send Mr. Swan another e-mail, asking him to confirm himself as the user in question, and to clarify the exact ownership status of the photo. Thanks. --Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Input at Joseph McCarthy

Could I get some input at the above article? An editor (on his third revert) is refusing both the tagging of an inherently unverifiable sentence with fact, or once I found a citation, the placement of it calling the source unreliable, when the statement itself couldn't be worded anymore unreliably.--Crossmr 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is this editor is making little sense and he removed the citation claiming this once again, must revert improperly formatted cite of uncontextualized source that disseminates unsubstantiated rumor, which makes me believe he feels the rumour is unsubstantiated (and lacking citation) yet objects to it being tagged as such.--Crossmr 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So he doesn't accept a request for a citation, yet does not accept an attempt to provide a citation? He wants to keep what he describes as a rumour, without citing it or removing? Oh boy. . . good luck. Adrian M. H. 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I came here for some input. That has edit war written all over it.--Crossmr 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Classing Articles.

As a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject, I'm assessing all article but the problem is with lists. It still shows up as unassessed although listed as list. Can anyone help? -- Warfreak 10:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The assessments update every couple days or so, but you can update it with this tool (type in "Food and drink". I have done so and that seems to do the job. –Pomte 07:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use images

I have been adding screenshots to the turn-based strategy article, but someone keeps removing them, claiming that fair use does not apply in this case. Do you agree that fair use doesn't apply? How come articles like real-time strategy and real-time tactics can use screenshots while this article cannot?? SharkD 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, almost all of the screenshots in the gallery at real-time tactics are being improperly used. There is no fair-use rationale given, and they shouldn't appear in a gallery. They could only be used in the article the covers the game that they come from. They're also of unnessesarily high resolution. The screen shot that you've been trying to add to the turn-based strategy article would belong in an article that describes the game that that screenshot came from, but it doesn't add anything to the turn-based strategy article that can't be covered by text. Sancho 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist shows just 3 items at a time

For the last few days, my watchlist has oddly shown only three items at a time. Is this a known issue, or am I the only one so afflicted? -- Ec5618 09:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Check your preferences. Unchecking "Expand watchlist to show all applicable changes" may help. –Pomte 09:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that worked. Thanks. I never would have thought of that. -- Ec5618 10:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Full site map

Please contribute to this idea: Full site map. Thanks, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 14:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Manliness (book)

The article manliness (book) needs to have a disambiguation page. Right now, searching manliness automatically takes you to masculinity without even offering the book as a second option once there.--208.120.250.5 21:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by P4k —METS501 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting User Abu badali gets banned ASAP

The user Abu badali have had a long history of user harrassment by abusing fair use policies. He is well known for wikistalking and unfairly deleting images with absolutely no regard, please see here. Recently he has been following my edits and purposely deleting images and ignoring any fairuse rationale I have written down. He generally flags a page to "rm unnecessary unfree images". An example is the Image:ZhouXuanCDrelease.jpg removed from the Music of China page, which clearly have a rationale and a historical use. He is purposely avoiding any conversation. I believe this user should be immediately banned for

1. Abusing any power, especially when has no administrative rights to begin with.
2. Abusing the fair use policy by improperly making deletions with no regard.
3. wikistalking
4. He already has a lengthy history of negatively enforcing rules among a number of users.
5. On his user page statements such as "Call me a stalker. It's fashionable now." and "Abu is targeting you" clearly demonstrate he has negative intentions and enjoy the harrassment for fun.
6. He has shown no ability to differentiate between "decorations" and "historical context" for ANY article.

Benjwong 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Abu badali is already the subject of arbitration case on these exact issues. That would be the appropriate place for such a discussion. WilyD 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

He needs to be banned indefinitely, as I believe there was such an attempt in March and May. For every edit he does, he is taking away massive contribution time from so many good users on wikipedia. Should I comment on that existing case or will someone start a new case? Benjwong 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The case appears to be in the evidence presentation phase right now - you may be able to submit evidence there. I doubt the arbcom would accept two cases on the same issue. WilyD 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Number 1 does not follow - how can he abuse power when he has none... hbdragon88 06:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He is harrassing again. He removed all the images from the Chinese rock page. Yet the US Rock and roll page was fine was a picture of Elvis. This user is making biased edits or have ZERO ability to figure out what's important. Benjwong 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I just want to say he is a major league a**hole, He ruins everything and does nothing but send people's stress levels through the roof. I WANT HIM banned permanently, this is unacceptable and if he continues to do this he can call my lawyers. Because I am not going to stand for this harrassment any longer.--Jack Cox 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats can get yourself banned, Jack. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Abu badali is not an administrator, so can't abuse his powers. He seems to be trying to bring our image use in line with our policy. How tactfully he goes about it, I cannot say. Judging from his user page, he may not be approaching it in the most sensible way. But there's absolutely no doubt that what he's doing is correct. ElinorD (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy clearly states that an image with good rationale can be used. Otherwise, why are millions of users wasting hours trying to write a good fairuse rationale? People have good intentions. The problem is that the rules allow anyone to flag anything they want as "unnecessary" and start wiping articles clean. This borderlines vandalism and is decreasing the quality of the articles. Benjwong 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two parts: good rationale and good commentary. Fair use explicitly says that it must be the subject of "critical commentary". Abu badali is going after the second part of the policy. hbdragon88 06:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Tags

Is everyone allowed to revert a Neutrality tag or does it require and Admin or some other person of weight to do so ? I am a novice. I wanted to remove the tag on the Angela Davis article but I did not do so. The tag has been removed but I am very curious as to how and why it happened Albion moonlight 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

• Anyone can remove neutrality tags or unreferenced tags or cleanup tags. These are simply flags for readers to caveat lector, and flags for editors to fix the problems. The only thing to do is to read through and make sure that the original concern has been resolved. There may also be discussion on the talk page.

Adminship is no big deal. Generally, if you can do something on Wikipedia, you are allowed to do it. That's part of the intent of the policy to ignore all rules. Shalom ^Hello 06:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Violations of GFDL license

"Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles[31] without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.[32][33]" (via Conservapedia)

I noticed that the page history of Kalos Kagathos was tampered with. I left a notice on the talk page and it has been corrected. Now, I find that the page history of Hermann Rauschning has also been tampered with. Please see Talk:Hermann Rauschning for details.

And then you wonder why I am getting a little hyper active.WHEELER 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mozilla_extensions

I think this category might require cleanup. A few entries look like they fail WP:N as in only linking to the site itself; no media coverage or anything like that, and there might be more because I haven't thoroughly looked at it. hbdragon88 21:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Elevation profiles

Do people think Image:NY 52 profile.png is useful? (Please, no one currently involved comment; I'm trying to get people who aren't already opposed to everything I create.) --NE2 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's useful. It provides relevant information that could not be available to the encyclopedia any other way. A small thumbnailed image never killed anyone. Shalom ^Hello 06:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

AllanLake.jpg

I have uploaded an image and I'm looking for the correct tag to apply to it. I was previously discussing this with User:wangi, but they are unavailable to help now, and suggested here. I have been given permission to use this image for Wikipedia and any other uses I see fit. Tis ismage has been used on a website as well, which is a commercial activity. However, I am unsure of what tag to add. Any ideas? Cheers Adamiow 09:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the upload wizard, the current permissions (as listed on Image:AllanLake.jpg) appears to be too restrictive for use on wikipedia. Ideally it would be released under a license such as GDFL. — RJH (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The current permission on the image is inaccurate, as I got very confused and gave incorrect information, which resulted in the current situation. However, the image is free to be used anywhere and for commercial activities. Any ideas what tag should be used? Cheers. Adamiow 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You uploaded the image as being grabbed from a website without specifying a source. Ten minutes later, you said it was copyrighted and used for any purpose. When challenged on the source, you said "I have obtained the image from the subject, with their permission and it is their picture." and "It was just for Wikipedia use. Unfortunately, no other version is available." When wangi noted that this was not an acceptable tag, you stated, "I have just remembered that the that the image has been used elsewhere, other than just for Wikipedia, still not for commercial use." When told this was not an acceptable tag, you then stated, "I have been given permission to use this photo in any way I wished." You "gave incorrect information," as you word it above, three (4?) times so far, which just may be the worst case of short-term memory loss I've ever seen on the wiki. Whatever the reason, I am deleting the image, since I've read through all the relevant talk pages, which is unlikely to be true of any other admin.

If you wish to try again, you need to specify both a source and a license. The type of the latter will proceed from the former, and no tag will help if you don't state the source in a convincing manner. For an example of a good detailed sourcing in a complex copyright situation, see Image:Helicopter indarfur.jpg. - BanyanTree 23:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Never ending discussion. Help needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_%28North_America%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Price_guide_.28again.29 The subject is whether or not the Wii Points should be removed from the VCNA article. One side thinks it turns the article into a "price guide" while the other side disagrees and thinks that the Wii Points are a valuable part of the article, considering what the article is about. Yes, I'm part of the argument, but this really has gone on too long. Whenever the article is unprotected, there's reverting all over the place. There's also people who are not being very civil, and who are accusing others of going against WikiPolicy here and there. The whole thing is a mess, and there is no way at this rate there will be any resolution. Serious help is needed to end this, and quick. By whatever means necessary. LN3000 08:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)