Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 189.128.114.75 (talk) at 00:28, 18 February 2007 (Is it a lie?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/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.

Spoken Wikipedia File Format

Recently, I went to listen to a spoken wikipedia article, wishing perhaps to download a few to my iPod. However, I soon found that the file was in the Ogg-Vorbis .ogg format. Despite the fact that I have most of the standard media players on my computer (iTunes, Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and RealPlayer, I couldn't open the file, much less play it on my iPod. Of course, I could download the codecs to make it play, but quite frankly I didn't feel like going through the hassle and even if I could play it on my computer that wouldn't solve the iPod problem. While I know that it's certainl possible to play the file on my computer and after-conversion on my iPod, it really seems like a lot of trouble. It seems ridiculous for Wikipedia to use this non-standard format for audio files. The most logical answer in my opinion is to use .mp3 files. Every player in the world, portable, computer or otherwise supports .mp3 files and the format has become so famous as to become part of the everyday lexicon. However, for reasons I can't understand Jimbo seems opposed to the idea. In his rationale, Jimbo claims that "There is very little inconvenience to end users anyway" from the use of Ogg files. This simply isn't the case. Downloading codecs can be a hassle, especially for the technologically illiterate and getting the files to play on an iPod or other portable device requires a reasonable amount of technical knowledge. In my opinion, we should rethink this policy and at least provide an MP3 download option alongside the present files if not switch entirely. If MP3s are for some reason taboo, I think we should consider another widely supported format such as .wav (although those files are a bit large). Cool3 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


First off, to solve your problem, please visit our media help page. If you follow the instructions there, Windows Media Player will play the files without issue.
Ogg/Vorbis is a standardized, open source, freely licensed format. However, you are correct that it is not as popular as MP3. Unfortunately, MP3 is a heavily patented format and one of the few pieces of software which is even patented in Europe. The licensing fees to encode, distribute, and play MP3 are non-trivial [1]. Because the Wikimedia Foundation has the creation and propagation of Free content as its primary mission, it would be be both hypocritical of us, and ultimately self-defeating, to use a non-free format for our audio. It also may be a violation of the license that our users submit content in to distribute their content to others in a non-free format.
Ogg/Vorbis also has some technical advantages over MP3: it offers better quality in a given size, or smaller size for a given quality. Furthermore, it has a much better tagging system which is useful for our work. These benefits are just frosting; the issues above really decided the matter for us.
As far as WAV goes, the big reason we don't use WAV is because of size as you guessed. A typical high quality audio sample on Wikipedia is 1.5MB in Ogg/Vorbis format, but over 36MB in wav format. Our bandwidth bill, already at many tens of thousands of dollars per month, is a substantial part of our budget. Our donation-driven service couldn't afford to use uncompressed audio for the sake of a little convenience.. And plus, it wouldn't be much of a convenience: you don't want to wait to download a 36MB file!
So at the end of the day we have some limitations that we need to work with... We don't have unlimited bandwidth, we can't use non-free formats. But we can try to make this easy as possible. To that end, I've provided a Java based player. Since most people have Java support, they can play our Ogg files without installing anything! Just look for the 'play in browser' links wherever audio is in Wikipedia, and be sure to provide feedback on how to make it better. There are tools which will automatically convert our Oggs into other formats so you can easily transfer them to your iPOD, and there is even alternative firmware for the iPOD that lets it play Oggs... but I don't use Windows and I don't have an iPOD, so I can't make any recommendations there. Perhaps someone else will comment.
I'd also like to know where you tried looking for help, ... our media help page should tell you what you need to know, but if you didn't find it I would like to know where you looked so we can make it easier to find. I'd also like to know if you did find that page but think it needs to be more clear.
Thanks for your comments. --Gmaxwell 06:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am myself perfectly aware of how to play the files and convert them for my iPod, but it's a bit of a hassle, and other non technically-literate folks wouldn't know how. Also as per the patent issues with .mp3 files, according to my understanding, you do not need to pay royalties for non-commerical use. It would be infinitely more convenient if we switched to .mp3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cool3 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The problem is that Wikipedia is supposed to be free for anyone to use or to copy and use elsewhere. If you were a commercial entity seeking to re-use Wikipedia content (and lots do) - that's OK for - providing they abide by the GDFL, give us credit, etc) But the existance of MP3's within Wikipedia would render this commercial organisation liable to pay someone fees for using this supposedly free content. That's contrary to our charter - so no MP3's please. SteveBaker 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the answer would be to provide (free, under GPL) an application that would convert OGG to MP3 with a really simple user interface. It wouldn't help the completely technologically illiterate - but for someone who can install an application and drag files into it - it's an easy way out. SteveBaker 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just allow MP3 to be placed alongside the OGGs? Downstream users and forks could use the OGGs and the MP3s would still be there for ordinary users. 20:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That runs right back into the patent issues with mp3s. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. There aren't patent issues for non-commercial use. According to the Thomson website, "No licence is needed for private, non-commercial activities". While Wikipedia may not be "private" it is certainly non-commercial and I'm certain Thomson would have no problem granting us the right to use mp3s on Wikipedia. The only issue is implications for downstream users who could just the OGGs if we put both, and quite frankly, if you want to talk about legal issues just browse through the images on Wikipedia for 5 minutes. While Wikipedia as a clearly non-profit entity can get away with an awful lot, any downstream users should be concerned about image issues. So, I say let's give the people .mp3s, the format synonymous with sound for 99.9% of the population. Cool3 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... "private, non-commercial activities" is most certainly an and, not an or. --cesarb 01:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you read on, the site further specifies that activities "not generating revenue" fit such a definition. I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked with the law for many years and the way I read that little snippet, Wikipedia is fine. I would contact Thomson myself for further information, but I have no particular authority from Wikimedia to do so. As such, I think I'll contact Brad Patrick, the foundation attorney and see if he'll volunteer a legal opinion. Cool3 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring downstream users of our GFDL-licensed content to have to comb through articles and media files to remove MP3s is simply not in line with our long-standing policies. Whether or not Wikipedia can use patented MP3s for free is entirely irrelevant; it's not just us that uses our content. Wikipedia stands for free content, not just free access to our content. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mirrors already have to comb through fair use images, since they are not always permitted commercially. Removing mp3 files is much easier from a technical point of view, you just filter them out by file extension. Tra (Talk) 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use images are an entirely different animal. I won't address your first point, but the Foundation is presently discussing the future of fair use images, and our policies are already incredibly strict — fair use images are not allowed if a free version can reasonably be provided. That is precisely the case here, as patent-free versions of ALL MP3s are available due to the convertible nature of audio files. There is no scholastic reason to include MP3s, which stands in stark contrast to fair use images. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expert recognition

I personally think that Wikipedia has taken a hit in the hard-science expertise area in the past six months. Please see WP:QUIT. I have been searching for users who claim post-graduate credentials in hard science and added {{ExpertContribution}} to those pages, but at the moment, I can only find two: Enzyme kinetics and Aldol reaction. If you know if other users who have claimed post-graduate degrees or work experience and have done significant work on getting hard-science articles to at least GA or FA status and are still active, then please signify on the talk pages with that template. Barnstars and even userboxes are not the answer. Also: I would consider {{maintained}} as a possible hint for such also, as long as they have a valid claim to expertise and clearly gave of their time toward content creation. This is not elevate the experts to some privileged status but to defend those to do advance specific articles. After all, these guys have to watch less-skilled hands contribute but also likely dilute the results of their work when those experts could otherwise be working on papers for journals, etc.--199.33.32.40 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one even knows those articles exist... I'll tag a few of them that I know of. Titoxd(?!?) 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few physicists here, as far as I can tell, and I suspect that the other sciences are also well represented. You can probably ask on the appropriate wikiproject talk pages to find them.
A more general question is why you think these users will share your particular goals for the encyclopedia. For example, not all editors share the goal of getting articles up to FA status (or GA status, if that is any different). In many cases it is not clear that there is any benefit to the designation that is worth the time investment. CMummert · talk 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the point of this template. Users who meet your criteria almost universally keep their major contributions on their watchlists and usually respond to comments left on the associated talk pages. As a suggestion, you should probably ask the users before adding the template to an article talk page. Opabinia regalis 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the intention in this usage of the template is for it to be a kudo for those who have some genuine expertise who manage to continue to contribute to the project. Perhaps it also suggests that having a few barnstars or even admin status does not necessarily qualify one to start being bold and making non-trivial edits those few articles or that one should at least self-assess themsevles for the appropriate academic prerequisits, including not being daunted by an equals sign, a differential equation or a stereochemical diagram.--70.231.149.0 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is academic eletism gone wild. This template should be deleted salted and forgotten.Jerry lavoie 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong way to go. Any contributor can be recognized by looking in the page history. We don't base articles on personal expertise here anyway, it's based on sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not expect this to become a big problem or to "go wild": in two weeks, it has only gone onto three article talk pages, the third one being Bacteria. That is slow proliferation. We need this kind of in-field graduate-level results for more technical articles. The slogan is: "Britannica or better." How are we going to get there if we do not celebrate such results when they happen? These people are helping us to get there on matters that require science, math and engineering, where there is little or no controversy that these are "educational" articles. Something else to celebrate: those three articles also seem to be free of serious rancor in their production.--71.141.248.77 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme rudeness

I wish that someone could check out what is going on at Talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells. It is almost reaching the level of threats. Is there another place to post my concerns. I couldn't find one. Thanks. Steve Dufour 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the problem if the users involved are just actively discussing the topic, but if you believe the conversation is escalating to a level of argument where threats are being used, you should consider posting this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment to see other user's take on the situation, or, more seriously, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, if you think intervention is required. --Xertz 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xertz, your "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment" added the parenthetical "(miscellaneous)", and there's no such pagename.
Steve, if editors can't agree on the talk page, they can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.

User Space Vandalism

User:Chinese_Pig_Louer was registered to attack zh-wiki user zh:User:Louer. Please consider to delete his user page and ban him.--Jnlin 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please report username problems, including attack accounts, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Admins there will review and block as appropriate. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously inappropriate usernames can be reported at WP:AIV (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism). -- Ben 23:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... though it appears this particular userpage has already been done away with.... -- Ben 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone gone through Encyclopedia Brit. 2005 edition and added all articles therein?

I know of the Missing Encyclopedia articles project, but was wondering if Ency. Brit. 2005 is included in those lists. Is it? Otherwise, I will go through whole thing and add all missing articles. Andrewdt85

While creating articles on topics that are mentioned in EB that are not mentioned here is of course welcome, do not copy text from the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica. --Random832(tc) 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they have an article on wikipedia? ;-) — RJH (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Encyclopædia Britannica: The 2007 print version of the Britannica does not mention Wikipedia, which is covered by other encyclopedias such as the 2006 World Book Encyclopedia, but the online Britannica does include an article about Wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lame. Lets AFD Encyclopædia Britannica in revenge! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a shill...

On Feb 7, a user Teddyii0 started inserting shameless plugs for the TV program "G4's X-play" into four pages. I'm considering going back and rv'ing his changes, and I'm going to keep an eye on him. What's the standard/best practice for dealing with something like this? BcRIPster 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the noble spammer, one of Wikipedia's most loathed inhabitants. I would definitely keep an eye on him. If you need to warn him, there are lots of suitable templates on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. You can choose specific warnings, for spam links or other offenses. Although, looking through his edits, it's entirely possible that he is just a 14 year old kid who likes G4. GhostPirate 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I suspect that may be true, but the Dik-Dik one kind'a threw me. BcRIPster 19:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that username is correct? I couldn't bring up the edit history. DurovaCharge! 22:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the bluelinked word "plugs" in first sentence above. It works. -- Ben 23:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we assume some good faith here and leave a warning on the user's talkpage? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs about Wikipedia?

Are there any blogs about Wikipedia? I've been googling for commentary on the inner-workings of Wikipedia, from non-Wikipedia sources, and came up dry. There must be ways for non-Wikipedians to learn what's going on in Wikipedia. Would be curious if anyone can point to any Wikipedia-related blogs. Anonymous 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blogged about Wikipedia here (Esperanza deletion), here (Microsoft manipulation) and here (Stephen Colbert versus Wikipedia). I've blogged about other Wikis here, here, here, and elsewhere. Jonathan Stokes 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs. It's not up-to-date but you're welcome to update it! Samw 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

  1. I've spotted a sockpuppet on my own talk page: it's User:Sword06/User:Brieg. He doesn't seem to have a real reason to have these accounts, and he hasn't replied to me why he uses both. I went to look how to report him, but there's too much stuff to read to nail him, so I ask that a fellow janitor around here does some research on him. If this is not possible, I'll get my hands dirty and do it myself, then.
  2. I've to confess to have screwed up earlier in my Wikipedia life as a user. I pretty much stole WP:PT, which originally pointed to Template:Protection templates, and redirected it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal, leaving WP:Pt for the template formerly mentioned. It wasn't nice, but that's what I did. Although, I thought my actions were alright, I expected someone to maybe complain one day. What I didn't expect was for an admin to rush in and steal the shortcut as well. I wouldn't care if he had reverted what I did, but instead he took the shortcut for another page, creating two problems: both WikiProjPortugal and Protection templates lost the shortcut. And he damn thinks what he did is just right. Did I mention that he protected the shortcut so no one else but another admin may edit where it leads? I'm talking about David Levy, and this is where I brought the issue up. I don't think he has acted correctly, and I think he deserves some kind of reprimand.
  3. Lastly, it's a question that I don't know where to take. You people know of that nifty javascript toolbar over the edit box? With the useful options to make text bold, add signature, redirect, etc? I would like to change how mine looks and add one more option. I know we users can have our own javascript template, but I don't know what code is needed to change it, or create buttons, or whatever. I have some experience with Javascript, so if someone would point me to some documentation or example code on what I'm trying to achieve it would be most welcome.

Regards--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are really three different issues.
Thanks for the reply and for the links to the third issue. I will not go further than here to solve the other two, though, because for 1) I don't have the time, and for 2) I fear retribution. Cheers, anyway.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a request for {{dablink|"WP:PT" redirects here. You may be looking for [[Template:Protection templates]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal]]}} to be added to the top of Wikipedia:Protected titles, which should hopefully solve some of these problems. Tra (Talk) 15:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links have now been added, when you type in WP:PT, you will still be able to get to WikiProject Portugal but with one extra click. Tra (Talk) 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tra. That will come handy for those who haven't noticed the change yet.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN)

WikiCast

Hi,

WikiCast - The free content broadcast, needs interested people to help make and edit programmes.

WikiCast aims to do thing simmilar to serious talk radio, but is always open to ideas.

ShakespeareFan00 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

Thoughts and discussion invited. Worldtraveller 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thread moved to the essay's talk page. -- Ben 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upside-down lists of works

If you spot a list of works, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per WP:LOW, or tag it with the template {{MOSLOW}}. This template looks like this:

May be handy to use what i've been using User:Whilding87/ListReverser.. I can't do it all alone :-) Whilding87 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Shopping Wiki

Having just watched a TVO interview with Carol Off about the chocolate trade (and slave labour), I wondered if there is a wiki project, for consumer products -- where it is made, the mininum wages of the workers, their responsibility to the environment etc.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing might cover this to an extent. Tra (Talk) 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true?

Wikipedia could shut within 3-4 months: Wikimedia--61.224.206.45 03:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia has been about 3-4 months from running out of money more or less throughout it's history (at least, after Jimbo stopped directly funding all of it). That's the general nature of a non-profit, esspecially one that's growing at the rate Wikimedia is. 75.214.202.6 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 10:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There isn't a non-profit out there that can be run for a year or more without funding. It's the nature of the beast. And you know, Jimmy could easily give money if he had to. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Infinite Ban on all Wiki Abusers

I have being distressed, especially lately, but in fact throughout my tenure as a Wikipedian, by the number of fellow Wikipedians who have left our community. By that I mean those who have chosen or being forced to leave due to personal attacks and vandalism, either of their home pages or articles.

Its being my experience that ALL of those who fall under this category have being people who have added tremendously to our project, both in scope and depth. It is therefore a source of anger that ahmadans, who's tenure here is bellicose, offensive and in no way a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, has driven so many invaulable colleges away.

Therefore, I wish to open a discussion on effective ways of dealing with such abuse. For my own part I would like to see such abusers (as opposed to the general Wiki user and contributor) banned very quickly indeed. Attacks by such abusers usually have being on-going for quite some time before a warning is given, and further time elapses with furthing warnings before a ban is evoked. Yet even then such bans have a finite duration.

My proposal is to replace the first warning with an outright infinite ban on any and all abuse. I would like to see this apply in the following cases:

  • 1 - Where abuse has occoured on several occasions (i.e., more than twice) prior to it being brought to the attention of the wider Wiki Community.
  • 2 - Where an apology for bad beheaviour and promise of future good conduct has being asked for and not given within a set time-limit.
  • 3 - Where an apology for bad beheaviour and promise of future good conduct has being given and broken (no time limit on such a promise).

In my own experinece, an Infinite Ban on abusers is the only course of action open to us. We have all seen that if a given 'contributor' begins such beheaviour they will continue with it whenever and wherever they please. Therefore, simple warnings are just not good enough. Action must be taken as soon as any abuse is detected. As with illness, prevention is better than cure. And while we cannot perhaps repair the damage abusers have committed (and which we were unable to prevent) on our fellow Wikipedians in the past, it is only in our common interest for each other and Wikipedia that we do so in future.

I would very much appreciate the thoughts of other Wikipedians on this subject. Is mise, le meas mor, Fergananim 11:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is in the definition of "Wiki Abusers". Presumably such cases are not always clear-cut, and at least some of the time people believe they're doing the right thing. The last thing we want to do is unfairly ban good contributors indefinitely – that would worsen the problem that you mention. Caution is always needed – Qxz 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I don't know if it's my imagination, but in my term as a Wikipedian I believe I have observed an increase in the ratio of abusive edits versus constructive edits. My watchlist used to show mostly constructive edits to the articles I was watching. Now, my watchlist shows nearly all the edits as vandalism edits or vandal reverts.
This might mean that more abusive people are finding Wikipedia and enjoy vandalizing it. Or maybe the constructive people are leaving. Either way, the result is that we spend more of our time dealing with abuse and less of it improving the project. Add this to the situation of an ever-increasing ratio of editors to administrators, and we have a serious problem.
I would support quicker bans for clear-cut abuse (e.g. replacing an article or section with an obscene word, even after warnings). Other cases aren't clear-cut, such as linkspamming by a good-faith editor who truly believes the link is valuable.
And I thought I would never say this, but given the amount of abuse from anonymous IP addresses, I have to say that now I would also support outright bans on editing by anonymous accounts. Along with such a ban comes the necessity of giving other editors the ability to see IP address used by troublemakers to identify sockpuppets. =Axlq 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an infinite ban policy on the mediawiki that I run, and so far it has helped eliminate a lot of stress. Between that and protecting targeted pages, our daily vandalism has dropped 95% (knock on wood).
Wiki abuse and vandalism is just like real life abuse and vandalism. The most effective treatment is Broken Windows Theory which was so successful for Guilliani in New York. Yes, he's a disciplinarian, but he solved New York's crime problem! Even the smallest infractions must be dealt with immediately and decisively.
As a sysop on my own wiki, I do give certain link-spammers the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I have zero tolerance policy for all other kinds of abuse. Wikipedia is a little more democratic, so I can see offering one fair warning. Other than that, once a user is banned, perhaps you can post some kind of appeal process on their user page, on the off chance the user really feels they didn't deserve to be banned.
The one sore spot in Wikipedia's reputation is that "you can't trust a Wikipedia article because anyone can go in and mess it up." Wikipedia has a duty to swiftly and sternly deal with abuse, and thereby improve Wikipedia's reputation for trust and credibility. If valuable Wikipedians are leaving due to abuse, then policy needs to be changed. Maybe there could be some sort of "exit interview" talkpage template for Wikipedians who have decided to retire. They might have the best insight into dealing with abusive contributors. Jonathan Stokes 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki policy on abusers at the moment sucks big time. An abuser comes along and constantly reverts. You can revert him 3-times, but not any longer because you might get banned; gotta spend ages doing reports hoping that an admin will actually do something, then he's back 24 hours later or 1 hour later under another IP address and you have to do the same again. That's at least 20 kbs of article text not been done, and a frustrated user. Most of my watchlist now consists of vandalism, usually by anons. But because anons are no longer allowed to open articles, you get more red linked accounts doing this. The wiki admin system, originally intended as a way of keeping certain user rights away from unknown users, has now become an elist system of privilege serving admin accounts more than wikipedia itself, where decent users have to go through an absurd vote and have no chance of getting "elected" if they even slightly diverge from the "ideal admin" invented by the culture of the people who vote there, i.e. that braindead, unopinionated man-bot they seem to so cherish. The result has been overburdening. The problem will surely get worse, so Wiki will either have to crack down heavily on vandals and trolls or change how certain user privileges are distributed. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The three-revert rule does not apply to obvious vandalism. If someone blanks a page and writes "penis" all over it, revert it as many times as you like. Leave them a "final warning" template message, and if they do it again, report them at WP:AIV; it usually seems to take about 5-10 minutes for requests to be dealt with – Qxz 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So where do we go from here? Fergananim 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the entire section above, I'm failing to see where the blocking policy falls down, and why an approach of fixing broken windows will make any difference. Right now, we block people for 31 hours (31 rather than 24 seems to be en vogue at the moment). They tend not to come back, and if they do it is from a different address. Consensus has been that indefinite range blocks are a Bad Thing, as getting rid of one petty vandal is not worth locking out thousands of genuine users. Chris cheese whine 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Certainly its a bad idea if the ip address is from somewhere such as an internet cafe, which would be used by dozens of people in the course of just one day. However, I was suggesting blocking the user, not the address. Only if abuse from the same address occoured twice via different (?) users would I deem an address block necessary. In any case, only by eradicating as many petty vandals will the work of thousands of genuine users be safeguarded from gratitious abuse. Fergananim 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused as to what is being asked for now, beyond what we already have.
Accounts used only for abuse seem to be indefinitely blocked more or less without exception. Certainly every one I've come across seems to get such a block applied soon after I report it. Anonymous users who vandalise can only be blocked temporarily, because we only have an IP address to identify them, which may be shared among thousands of computers or re-asssigned elsewhere at any time. But even IPs are frequently blocked for several months.
Since you were asking for an "infinite ban on all wiki abusers", I was assuming you were trying to introduce something new – implying that you wanted indefinite bans to occur in less clear-cut cases. If all you want is blocks for obvious abuse, that seems to be the case now as far as is technically possible.
You say "However, I was suggesting blocking the user, not the address." If they're editing anonymously there is no way to do that, the IP address is the only thing that is available.
The other complaints here seem to be partly a misunderstanding of the "Three Revert Rule", and partly a vague attack on the system of selecting administrators, neither of which have anything to do with the issue at hand.
If someone can identify a case where indefinite blocks are not being issued where they could safely be issued without affecting innocent users or those acting in good faith, that would be most welcome; however I cannot see one here. Thanks – Qxz 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkfarm

Is it just me, or is Online video game rental filled with inappropriate external links to game rental companies? --Ideogram 11:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the whole section. None of them seemed appropriate. --Spartaz 18:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images in Desert Punk are almost certainly not legal. --Ideogram 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I will try to take them down ASAP. Thanks for the notice. -Hairchrm 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace

I've been doing this for a while now - so this is kinda embarrasing - but what exactly are mainspace edits. I thought for a while that they were just edits to articles - but that doesn't seem right.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, they are basically edits to anything that is not a template, image, Wikipedia page, MediaWiki page, user page, category, portal or talk page. Tra (Talk) 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainspace is just another name for namespace 0 (which is usually unprefixed). See Help:Namespace. --cesarb 22:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki made me feel bad...

I found this really great website, that is trying to help the common man, called goodstorm.com. Anyway, goodstorm.com has some really cool charities like PETA, Plea For Peace, and NKU Students for Choice, that I thought I would help out. I posted each of these charities store front on their Wiki pages, to let people know they can buy merchandise to support these causes. I even posted a Wiki page about GoodStorm.com, to let people know about the site. Well, Wikipedia has it up for deletion and they won't let me post any of the charities' store fronts on their Wiki pages. Now I feel bad...--Erinmystic 00:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Susan--Erinmystic 00:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erinmystic (talk * contribs) 00:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, but wikipedia's purpose isn't to promote charities. When editing an article your primary aim should be to improve the article and make it more like an encyclopedia... otherwise your edits might be removed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book Wanted: Would like to buy

Prescription for Nutritional Healingeither the first or second edition. The edition I want has a chart with foods listed and the nutritional components in each. The later versions do not have this chart. If you have it please let me know and the amount you are selling it for. MaDonna

Perhaps you meant to post this somewhere else? Wikipedia is a free, non-commercial, charitable site that aims to produce an encyclopedia. Anyone can edit a page. Cheers! Yuser31415 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When is a record label notable?

Is If society notable? --Ideogram 14:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking it would be when other people start writing about it. Steve Dufour 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The typical answer to "is this notable?" is "Can you find multiple independent non-trivial press coverage?" If the answer is yes, then there you go. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History folks - this one's for you!

Hi! I'm working on a jeopardy-like game show called "class president", which is a game show, there's lost of info at the WikiCast wiki. We're planning to do a pilot in early April, and we'd like up to 10 contestants to join us. There's lots of info at that link, and you can drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Also, music folks, we're looking for a song that sounds presidential, or something like that, if we use your recommendation, you will get credited, so leave me a message. Thanks, ST47Talk 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia

I was working on Basil John Mason (most of the work is in progress at Talk:Basil John Mason) and I came across Encyclopedia Britannica's entry for this guy. See here. Rather embarassingly, they've put this eminent meteorologist in their film section! Probably confusing him with the film industry Basil Mason. Do we still compare Wikipedia and EB or not, and is there anywhere to record this? Getting back to Wikipedia editing (as opposed to pointing out EB mistakes), does anyone have time to stop by Talk:Basil John Mason to help sort things out there? Carcharoth 03:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting mistake! :) I know there is a page somewhere for "mistakes in Britannica" but I'm not sure of the address. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are lots of other authors there. You just need to change the author ID name at the top. This appears to be a way to access the list of EB contributors. I've been trying to find a way to access the real interface, but with no success. Carcharoth 13:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found this: Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Femto 13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive icon

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Archive box about which icon to pick - i think that whatever one is chosen should be used for all the archive-related templates. --Random832(tc) 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crital problem with Fair use and Template:Screenshot

Moved this talk to Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sphynx (cat)

Isn't that advertisement?--Vaya 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above sites sell kittens, so can anyone tell me if such links are allowed in the above article?--Vaya 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Metal 4 music

As a player of Twisted Metal 4, I happen to know that the song: Closing Time [Live] is the song played in the Neon City level.

Time's Running Out is the one played in the next level.

Cypress Hill does Closing Time [Live] in Neon City.


(Minion1112)Minion1112(Minion1112)

about the name wiki

we are having a technical fest in our college, so can we use the event name WIKI for the quiz we are going to conduct,ofcourse all the questions will be framed using wiki and the proper credits will be given. I mean to ask if theres any license attached with the name and logo. I am newbie to this licensed world.hoping to get a quick reply —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.129.183 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wiki is a general term for any site that you can edit, so it's not a trademark and therefore does not require any permission. Wikipedia and its logo, however, are trademarked. Tra (Talk) 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopping license

If you photoshop different images that were taken from Google images, would it be possible to upload the image to Wikipedia? If so, what license should you use? --AAA! (AAAA) 10:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take an image from someplace else and edit it using photoshop it becomes a derivative work. What license you would then use to upload it to Wikipedia and whether it would be a copyvio or not depends on the original image and what exactly you did to it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the simple answer to the poster's question is no. ONUnicorn is right about derivative works. Most people who Photoshop existing images don't understand copyright law well enough or exert enough effort to create anything other than a derivative work. Just as it isn't acceptable to change the grammar of another encyclopedia's article and try to submit that here, it isn't acceptable to dress up an existing image and try to submit that here. It is acceptable to write a new article based on several existing sources. It would also be acceptable to create a new image from scratch based on several existing sources. But you can't copy, paste, and make cosmetic changes in either instance even if the result is a patched together mishmash of plagiarism from several different sites. For an example of how a well-meaning editor got the concept terribly wrong, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mango. The whole article had to get reverted by about six weeks to fix the problems. DurovaCharge! 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's okay to photoshop free use images and upload them, right? --AAA! (AAAA) 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they were genuinely free use to start with, I would think so. Credit the source of the original, of course, and state the licensing on the original, then upload it under a free license yourself. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

210.213.138.211 vandals

210.213.138.211 has vandalized many pages, maybe admins should block 210.213.138.211. Oakwhiz 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon hasn't edited since October 2006, and in the future, you should report to WP:AIV. PeaceNT 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be thousands ...

Are we going to have an article on every village in Tibet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ideogram (talk • contribs) 08:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. Eugène van der Pijll 10:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of a debate as to where the cut-off point lies. In my personal opinion, if we had an article about every village in Tibet, it would be great. Take that Encyclopedia Britannica! But others would say that a small village isn't notable enough to merit an article. Notability is a tricky subject, and it can be hard to determine sometimes. GhostPirate 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have an article on every villiage in the U.S. Why not Tibet also? There are more in the U.S. than Tibet, I'm sure (much larger country). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

Is there any way to check all of the subpages off of a given page? Or do you just have to follow links and/or know that the page is there? Thanks!! - Hairchrm 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:Prefixindex/Page name/ to see a list of subpages. Tra (Talk) 03:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!!! - Hairchrm 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a lie?

Hi guys, i was wondering if you could help me out. Yesterday i was talking to my girlfriend and she mentioned something that shook me a little, something that i don`t know if i should take for a fact. She was telling me that her brother had visited a talk and discussion forum where some of the peoplr there were claiming that homosexualism could be treated through medication, and assured, it could be treated in such ways, they might be able to erradicate it. Is this true?, is it possible?, doesn`t this involve genetic manipulation?, I haven`t been able to find a straight answer, can you guys help me out? Luis Rosas proteo102000@yahoo.com

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=108950613"