Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive X

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). 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 · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Another suit against wikipedia - but an entertaining one

This blog post [1] discusses the suit, just filed in federal district court in New Hampshire by Kamal Karna Roy who is angry that he is "denied editing free expression" concerning his wikipedia article. The hand-written lawsuit is worth a persual (a PDF linked at the blog post) - DavidWBrooks 12:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At first glance it seems frivolous, but sometimes I see some seemingly odd decisions coming out of the courts. If he succeeds then I'm not sure I'd like the ramifications for other forms of media. Could a person block an unauthorized biography because he or she was "denied editing free expression"? — RJH (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If he succeeded (and he won't) every form of media as we know it is ah to use a technical term "stuffed". Incerdentaly if anyone goes to watch the case could they try and get a pic of the guy?Genisock2 19:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia serves a goal and as a group we have the right to deny people without the wish to further that right editing privileges. If he wants free expression, he should start his own website instead of bothering Wikipedia. Free expression is invariably about opinions, Wikipedia is about facts. His ideas are simply incompatible. I doubt the court would actually follow through on this suit. I can't even read what it says. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting edits from California State Senate address

Someone may be interested in the recent editing patterns of 198.135.224.110 (talk · contribs). The address is registered to the California State Senate, and is editing on political issues. Some quick checking showed that there has also been editing from 198.135.224.111 (talk · contribs) in the past. --StuffOfInterest 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User templates

note: the templates are listed below at the right, for reference. —Random832 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to the templates in the {{user}} family - there are too many of them, they have gratuitiously inconsistent style, and it's in some cases impossible to discern what they're for - is there any way this can be simplified? —Random832 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've informed most of the creators of these templates on their talk pages; I think they should participate in the discussion (and in some cases I'd like a clear picture of what they intended the templates to be used for) —Random832 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The issues as I see them:

  1. All the templates should use the same dot between the parameters - some use a bullet, some use a mid-dot, some use bold or small versions of either.
  2. All the templates should make the same decision about whether to use a color override for the links that require a full url. (I think they should not - if users want to change the color, they can apply a color to links in .plainlinks)
  3. There should be fewer of these templates.
  4. The purpose of these templates should be made more clear.

—Random832 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, userlinks-tt is intended to render the user's name in URL format in typewriter font, to make it easier to detect name-spoofing ala Jimbo WaIes (Jimbo WaIes) and such. Other user templates appear to have the same purpose. Go ahead and delete/merge userlinks-tt as needed. --EngineerScotty 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The templates were created because on various pages, people wanted a specific set of informations about the users. Maybe there are too many, but I don't think it's very much important. As long as they're used somewhere, it should be ok. Otherwise, they would be probably userified which means that we surely will have doubles. Just my two cents ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Random832, if the templates are different, it means that the people who created wanted to achieve different results in term of visual result and/or information displayed. I do think that it doesn't serve any purpose to standardize what has been made only because it needed to be different. Snowolf How can I help? 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I created {{User17}} to incorporate the new StatusBot, because someone asked me to. I will userfy it, if required. Daniel 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with making them more consistent in style. But as long as they are not exact duplicates I see why we can't have them all as deleting them will annoy people and I don't see any advantage to deleting them. --Trödel 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is there are near-duplicates. The only difference between {{UserVP}} and {{User11}} is the former doesn't link to the mediawiki query contribcounter. I think that the system should be _simplified_ - don't delete any of the names, but merge and redirect a few. {{User2}} and {{User2a}} differ SOLELY on what kind of bullet they use to separate the options. {{user9}} is another variant on the same options. {{User5}} and {{Userlinks}} are another pair that are nearly identical, and for a reason - they were both meant to replace {{Vandal}} - the latter is redirected from it, and the former explicitly says so in the edit history. So why not redirect one to the other? The decision of whether to allow a parameter for the user's "alias" or not should be unified across all of them, and not make forks (viz. {{user-c}} and {{user-c-name}}) for that purpose. There's half a dozen that are minor formatting variants of each other - a <sup> here, or a <small> there. Some point to kate, some to interiot, and there's no rhyme or reason as to which. (does kate's even work anymore? I thought that was the reason for interiot's) A select few use <tt>, and it's not clear why they do and others don't. And, yes, they're used different places, and those places have different needs - that's one of the reasons I wanted lots of input on this. —Random832 03:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason that there's {{userVP}} is because, without it, the VP moderation interface will break. Daniel 04:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? Why does it need to have those links in particular? (what 'moderation interface' is this?) Why can't it have any others? ({{User11}} contains all links that {{UserVP}} does.) Can you explain exactly what would break if {{UserVP}} were made a copy of, or a redirect to, {{User11}}? I don't understand what you mean by 'moderation interface' - is this something that parses pages and looks for the name "UserVP"? What exactly is the process this is used for, that requires ready access to interiot and block log, but nothing else? —Random832 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have never been able to convince VP's moderation interface to work, but it's basically a part of VandalProof which allows moderators to approve or rejects appications, edit the user list and so on. Snowolf How can I help? 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


A bad rash of templates

Maybe it's because a lot of template are being redesigned that they are braking out all over the place. Can an effort be made to ensure that there are some instructions on the new template pages to make it clear when they should not be used without also raising the issue on the talk page. They are (in my experience of late) used most often by people who have not edited the article before and so are making instant 'gut feeling' judgements. It makes it very difficult to guess what they are taking objection too or worse, workout if they have not read the article properly but just skimmed over it and spotted something they feel they don't like. I have realised that I no longer take any notice of most of the templates now, as they are just wasting too much time in trying to guess just what bit they are referring to and why. If you have been following this, an other discussion pages you will read a lot of discontent about the poor use of these templates but nothing positive seems to be happening and the problem is getting worse. --Aspro 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What - you don't think it's helpful to lard every article with a big box that shoves half the text off the screen in order to say something really insightful like "This article isn't as good as it could be - make it better"? I wish somebody would create a template-killing bot; leave the one that points to lack of references, but kill all the others. - DavidWBrooks 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
PoV/Neutrality templates are always a useful heads up for me when I go to read an article. But yes it's difficult to know at what point you've addressed the concern of the person inserting the template, especially when it's hundreds of edits deep in the history and you have to waste time tracking down the originator to find out why. At present I feel free to remove a template (after making some effort to address it) whenever there is no clarification on the talk page. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
When In Doubt, Take It Out - that's my motto about the damn things. I have found that deleting a template almost never draws a complaint, which says to me that people too often slap them down and then move on. - DavidWBrooks 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think the policy should clearly state: the big templates should only be used if an entire article is unacceptable/to be deleted/NPOV. For all the lesser inaccuracies use just {{fact}} and {{huh}}. Every template big or small, should have a clear doc/guide not only "add to page when ..." but, first of all, "remove template from a page when...". Lack of the latter is the root cause of a problem. --Kubanczyk 09:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If an editor can't be bothered to tell people what the problem is on the article talk page after plopping down a POV tag or something similar, I can't be bothered to search for the reason before removing the tag. But the no references tag is useful; {{refimprove}} less so and more usefully replaced by targeted {{fact}} tags.- BanyanTree
Yes, IMHO you are right, but most unexperienced editors fear to remove tags. So a guideline would help them. By the way, I've just found an interesting Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes‎, I think it is a better place for such discussions. --Kubanczyk 11:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Truth from an unexpected quarter

According to the appropriate category Corruption in Mumbai needs cleanup... Rich Farmbrough, 09:39 3 October 2007 (GMT).

BC or BCE?

Moved to Talk:Japan.

A suggestion for a wiki site: WikiName(s)-with description below

This site would be an open-editable directory that is sort of like a baby-name finder, but also includes things like names that relate to popular names and all sorts of other decent stuff that may change/stuff may be added as more popular names become avail

names.wikia.com?

Nano Technology Developing

The new trend of technology that combine physics and chemistry already developed on Indonesia which located at Serpong, Tangerang. That technology is popular known as nanotechnology that can make a new particle characteristic with atomic fusion.

Template windowHome

I created a new template based on an Italian Wikipedia template that I think it could be useful. You can see it in my own page User:Dejudicibus, whereas the tempalte itself is in Template:windowHome. Here is an example:


edit[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dejudicibus/Dictionary&action=edit

The Dictionary Team is a group of volunteers whose objectives is to deploy a multi-language culture across the Internet. Each member is responsible for a national site which contains various linguistic resources and information. Each site provides visitors with a local version of the Dictionary Program, a freeware tool designed to display bilingual dictionaries created by the volunteering contribution of users. All dictionaries are freeware and can be used for personal purposes, not commercial ones. They are distributed under the Creative Commons license.

Another tool, Unicode Dictionary, allows to display also non-Latin scripts, and monolingual dictionaries. This viewer was developed by Borland C++, by using the wxWidgets portable libraries, and can be potentially ported to Linux and Mac too, but I have not found yet somebody available to support me to port it on those platforms.

The Italian site contains more than 90 dictionaries from and to Italian language. There are multi-ethnical and ethnical dictionaries, specialized glossaries (e.g. astronomy, photography), ancient languages (e.g. Italic languages. Site is in Italian only. There is a brief English summary, anyway.

 

There may be a spate of bizarre vandalism involving inserting pictures of the frontmen of the band Status Quo into Wikipedia images. I just read this on B3ta.com:[2] 

"Hello b3ta Towers," blurps danbull45, "We
would like to divulge to you the following very
sinister secret. Using a variety of aliases and
cunning page edits, we have now subtly shopped
Status Quo into nearly 200 different photos on
Wikipedia. Our aim is for every image in
Wikipedia to have Teh Quo hidden somewhere
within it. We'd like to show you the fruits of
our labour, but for obvious reasons can't
reveal the location of each image - so here is
a taster of our handiwork. Perhaps your
newsletter's readers could aid us in our
glorious mission?"

One such image is Image:Image-Notting Hill Carnival Crowd August 2006.jpg - if you look on the left-hand side of the road under the "Let" sign you can see that this picture (a meme that has been circulating on the site since time immemorial) has been photoshopped in. Childish and pretty inconsequential vandalism but still vandalism all the same. It's apparently been done under a variety of sockpuppets - is it worth alerting WP:CHECKUSER and asking them to check any Image: namespace contributions from the same IP as the image uploader - Statusquorn (talk · contribs)? Qwghlm 15:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The TDC Sweepstakes! Win a $100 Amazon.com gift certificate!

Hate Sockpuppets? Want to cleanup Wikipedia? Want to win a fabulous prize? Then go to User:TDC/Prize for more information. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The request for checkuser should've found the puppeteer had there been one, but offering a prize to find it in monetary awards is almost certainly in bad taste... x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bad taste? I think its a good motivator. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It counts as an attack page because there is no definite evidence of sockpuppetry other than a plausible checkuser (the checkuser would've found the sockpuppeteer, anyway). You can file multiple checkusers if you wish but note that the last one you filed failed. The page has been deleted (not by me) as an attack page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sky News reads Wikipedia then reports

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crandon%2C_Wisconsin&oldid=113933309 A March version of the article.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1287329,00.html Read the last line.

Nothing significant, I know, but doesn't it make you question the worthiness of a new org that just takes any statement from Wikipedia and reports it?

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that was taken from Wikipedia, rather than, you know, being something that happens to be true and both Wikipedia and the news source have it for that reason? Maybe they looked at the chamber of commerce site or the myhometown page? —Random832 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Car article pictures

Hi WikiCrew,

I've noticed that most images of late-model vehicles on Wikipedia are somewhat clinical. Is this intentional?

I'm an automotive journalist with a cache of photos of late-model vehicles that I have taken myself. Since the work has already been done, I have no problem fully releasing the rights to some of them.

I will soon upload a few examples to the Commons. Is there a standard etiquette for replacing images in articles?

Thanks for the help, Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highmileage (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The etiquette is Be Bold. Have at it. If someone objects, then take it immediately to the talk page. If no one objects, and you are, in good faith, attempting to improve the articles, have at it... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I've found, they are out there, you just have to look around. Ask at some boards at commons. Dfrg.msc 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Google Earth

Why on earth does this "contact us" subpage tell readers to contact Google when markers are in the wrong place? All Google did was extract instances of {{coord}} (and variants such as {{coor title dms}}) from a database dump and convert that data into a Google Earth layer. If things are in the wrong place, it's because the coordinates given in the article text are wrong. That is for Wikipedia to fix, not Google. Google even explain this themselves here – Gurch 16:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cy Twombly...is the painter the son of the Baseball player?

Hello. Could some one tell me if Cy Twombly the well known contemporary artist is the son of Cy Twombly, the famous baseball player of the years 1920? Thanks.

Do the date and place of birth fit with the baseball player's age and background? I can find no mention of his father in any of my books (which only give brief coverage of Twombly), which doesn't rule it out, but it's probably just a coincidence. Add a {{dubious}} tag? Adrian M. H. 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. More precisely: was Cy, Edwin Parker Twombly, ( 1894-1974 ) a very known baseball player (?) ( to see particularly the year 1921 ) the father of Cy Twombly, the painter? . Référence in Wikipedia (to verify) : "Twombly's father, also named Cy, pitched for the Chicago White Sox" . Thanks again. Jbdepradines 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I get your point; I read the article this morning, and my answer remains unchanged. I have no references that prove it and I think it may well be a simple case of someone thinking that 2+2=5 due to the identical and unusual name. I know art, but I do not know baseball. Tag it, do some research yourself, and if no one cites it in due course, remove it. Adrian M. H. 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this site The painter's full name is Edwin Parker Twombly, Jr., nicknamed Cy. While it does not expressly say that Edwin Parker Twombly (the baseball player, also nicknamed Cy) was his father, it certainly appears that with 99% certainty, they are father and son. Doesn't seem that unusual, there are many instances of fathers and sons being very famous for very different reasons (See Tim McGraw and Tug McGraw for example, or Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. for another). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Another reference. this site establishes that Edwin Parker "Cy" Twombly was a baseball player that pitched for one year for the White Sox. Still nothing that says expressly that the baseball player was the painter's father. But it looks better and better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The painter lists baseball as an interest on his myspace page. Coincidence? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And this page makes the statement directly that the painter's father was a baseball player. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all. Jbdepradines 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, newb question

Okay, I was just browsing random articles and I came across one titled "Hattie Gosset", which was fine except for the style in which it was written. How do you flag an article for cleanup/editing if I don't want to do it myself? thanks Missmissy 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Use {{cleanup}} for general cleanup, or use any one of over a hundred more specific cleanup templates that can be found at Category:Cleanup templates. Also, a note explaining your concerns on the article talk page would be helpful as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, please mention your concerns on the talk page. Without those, it's pretty much impossible to take care of the issues you want to point out. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to date the tag. Adrian M. H. 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has already been deleted for having no real content. --207.176.159.90 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The original questioner was talking about the style in which the article was written. How come I can't find any content in the page's history? I'm smelling some obscure content removal/move here... - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is Hattie Gossett (with two 't's in each word).-gadfium 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I?

See a list of new users? is there such a special page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonGang (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See Special:log/newusers. - BANG! 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Another suit against wikipedia - but an entertaining one

This blog post [3] discusses the suit, just filed in federal district court in New Hampshire by Kamal Karna Roy who is angry that he is "denied editing free expression" concerning his wikipedia article. The hand-written lawsuit is worth a persual (a PDF linked at the blog post) - DavidWBrooks 12:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At first glance it seems frivolous, but sometimes I see some seemingly odd decisions coming out of the courts. If he succeeds then I'm not sure I'd like the ramifications for other forms of media. Could a person block an unauthorized biography because he or she was "denied editing free expression"? — RJH (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If he succeeded (and he won't) every form of media as we know it is ah to use a technical term "stuffed". Incerdentaly if anyone goes to watch the case could they try and get a pic of the guy?Genisock2 19:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia serves a goal and as a group we have the right to deny people without the wish to further that right editing privileges. If he wants free expression, he should start his own website instead of bothering Wikipedia. Free expression is invariably about opinions, Wikipedia is about facts. His ideas are simply incompatible. I doubt the court would actually follow through on this suit. I can't even read what it says. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Who decides the feature article on the main page?

How do i suggest a feature article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.197.195 (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Who: User:Raul654
How: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Thanks for asking! ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Daytime Schedule

I notice that you have articles about primetime TV schedules. Should I create an article with a daytime TV schedule?--Nick4404 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you can prove that the subject of your article follows these guidelines/policies:
and if you think it meets those guidelines, see Starting a new page.
Good luck!~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But please see WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a guide, and not a collector of indiscriminate information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Community or Bureaucracy?

Hi. Im not sure if this is the right place for this discussion but I couldn't find anywhere else. I have a question which I would like to hear a wide variet of opinions for. Is Wikipedia losing its community spirit and turning into a bureaucracy. I would have thought that Wikipedia should be a community run encyclopedia where the community builds up consensus for anything including writing articles, deleting articles, agreeing on policies etc. I don't know if its just me but I fear that Wikipedia may be starting to turning into a bureaucracy with standardised processes. For example alot of discussions on Wikipedia such as WP:XFD seem to be turning into a vote where users agree with any points mentioned by the first user and others simply agreeing as in a vote rather than discussing the matter. Other concerns include the behaviour of some admins, behaving as if they had superiority. Even WP:RFA at times seems to reflect this. Another point is that policies seem to be turning into strict rules rather than a guideline for the community to follow. Biting new users is another thing I see often. Alot of the time, I get the feeling that some users don't see Wikipedia as a community where community consensus is key and that Wikipedia is turning into a virtual world with alot of official standardised processes that you would find in a bureaucracy. Maybe I am simply seeing Wikipedia in the wrong way but I am hoping that my fellow wikipedians can help me out here. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Just to clarify, I don't think this is a problem with all wikipedians as I know many wikipedians who are very friendly and believe in a community. However what I mentioned above does apply to some wikipedians in my opinion. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did everyone get the idea that lack of voting is some long tradition? It's not. Many things, the most noticeable example being Arbcom, were ratified by a pure majority vote that made absolutely no pretense to be anything else. It's really quite recent that people have begun this push to kill everything that looks remotely like a vote. -Amarkov moo! 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been here since 2001 and I got the idea that lack of voting was some long tradition because our approach has been to avoid voting and instead try to reach agreement by discussion since the start of the project. Arbcom by contrast is a relatively recent innovation and probably started this recent trend to put everything to a vote. So I'm glad to see you write that we have started to get pushback against the vote-maniacs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC).
Can I ask you if you think voting is good here? You are after all more experienced and so I would like to hear your opinions. Just a note that I was also mentioning factors other than voting, which may not have been very clear. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Voting isn't good in the sense that sometimes it will arrive at the wrong result. But every other system arrives at the wrong result more often, so it's the best we have. And the same goes for strict rules; having a clear set of rules that can almost never be broken will sometimes result in injustice, but having the extremely loose rules some people seem to want, where they can do whatever they want by invoking common sense, are worse. -Amarkov moo! 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinions. I have to agree with you regarding the rules but not as strongly as you as I believe that there are times when WP:IAR can apply. After all policies are something which have become widely accepted by the community. Regarding the voting Im not really sure. Just out of interest what kind of community do you think Wikipedia should be so that its aim can be achieved. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that yes, wikipedia is becoming more of a bureaucracy. But that can have positive benefits in addition to the negative. The positive, as I see it, is a stronger need for reliable verification. Hence the trend toward more citations, as well as moving some dubious insertions to the article discussion pages. In terms of civility, well I'm not sure that the proportion of civil people has changed. Some of the remarks can be a little biting, but it's hard to be diplomatic all the time. I do find the AfD process disappointing at times; it's a very conservative sub-society on WP that seems to be frequently ruled by memes. I've also seen examples where they don't even follow their own guidelines; instead leaning to the extreme negative (delete) depending on the subject matter. — RJH (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the philosophical and fundamental questions about the role and value of voting in Wik, I have another concern. I have seen a number of votes where the total is (often far) less than twenty. When four people vote one way and two or three another, I see no reason at all to consider this a reason in and of itself to make a decision; yet I've seen this happen. So, even if we do use votes, we should not consider them meaningful when the entail a tiny number of people. Kdammers 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning civility: Generally, I find the Spanish Wik very friendly, the English Wik civil except on a number of special issues (subjects such as Rush Limbaugh and procedures/policies such as C.E./A.D. and linking), and the German Wik infested with aggressive, highly opinionated, arrogant and stubborn mean-voiced editors. Kdammers 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::To be honest I don't think a bureaucracy is very helpful for building an encyclopedia which is the main aim. There are alot of processes on wikipedia which I feel should be dealt with by office staff. Obviously there are things which need to be done by the community in order to maintain the encyclopedia but I think some processes go too far. Sometimes the question comes to mind, are we trying to create a good encyclopedia as a friendly community or are we trying to run wikipedia as a bureaucratic organisation? Aren't some users taking wikipedia too seriously which in turn creates wikistress? I believe that wikipedia should be an enjoyable hobby to make a good quality encyclopedia and not a chore. What do other users think? Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually let me rephrase the above as its not very clear of what I mean. What I meant to say was that regular processes required to maintain and write the encyclopedia should be a community process and not a bureaucracy. This includes processes such as article writing, WP:AFD, WP:AN/I etc. I did mention above about processes which go too far such as contacting ISPs and should be dealt with by office staff but thinking about it, voluntary users doing this is helpful as office staff aren't always available. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Experienced Editor Assistance

The afc submission here. The article was already deleted before, and the submission I'm not very sure about, since it was already deleted). --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Same scenario with this one. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And also this one. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone also tell me how to deal with these in the future? --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read very thoroughly the policy on reliable sources. At least at first glance, everything that's actually about the subject of each proposed article is self-published - a blog, fansite, etc.. (The newspaper articles seem to be of the variety of "X, Y, and Z are appearing at event ABC"; that's an acceptable cite, but not for establishing notability.)
In short: the articles appear to be about people who never were important enough to get separate stories about them in national publications, and so there is no basis to claim notability. Sorry. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If event ABC happens to be the Oscar ceremony, I'd definitely consider this a source that helps a person's or a band's notability, but you'd need more than just a handful to reach that point and John is right, that unless more on the subject is mentioned, there's probably not going to be a solid basis for an article. Self-published sources can be useful. Bands are usually the best source when it comes to their own biography and discography, but you need other sources to establish their notability before considering using those. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

About namespace in portal

Why English Wikipedia has namespace for portals 'portal' but in Thai Wikipedia we have only 'article' ? Are there any scripts in MediaWiki:monobook.js or common.js that help it becomes that as same as namespace in the main page ? --Passawuth 10:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't understand your question. Could you reword? Thanks, BanyanTree 10:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OOH yeah

Could somebody write me an essay on the dalai lama. It should be about his contributions to buddhism and NOT about his life okay! Make sure its in my words and 1000-1500 words in length. Just put it here i guess. Before tuesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.248.21 (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to do your homework for you, but if you need to do some research, you could start by reading the article on Dalai Lama. Make sure you don't put in any information from Wikipedia unless you can also back it up with a reliable source. If you need more help on where to go for information, try asking at the Reference desk. Tra (Talk) 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh* This is not a site for other people do do your work, but adding to the above, try Buddhism, and if you are looking for more information, Google will probabally help you out. Good luck with that essay ^_^

Javascap 20:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_X&oldid=1146807274"