Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These dicussions 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.
Airline articles and an anon poster(s)
This is not vandalism, but a series of questionable edits with the discription of (Updated and made consistent).
These edits remove any tables in the article and replace them with text that contains less information. They replace templates with a heading and text that replaces direct links with redirects. They also either remove the owner of the airline or bury the owner at the bottom of the text. They include the destinations back into the main article from the destinations article and change the heading to Services. The destinations are added in one sentence, making something difficult to read and the bots have to disambig some of the entries. This editor makes changes to the content of the articles that other editors discussed over a period of time to reach the point were it was.
While some of the edit changes are good, these changes also combine unrelated points into one paragraph, not good. I have seen this on AirTran Airways and America West Airlines. Since America West was the second time I saw this, I'm bring it here. Don't know what the best place to discuss this is.
Was there an airline project to standardize these pages that I'm not aware of? How do we deal with something like this. Vegaswikian 3 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
- Tables were agreed upon in the Airport wikiproject, right? I'd just revert with a detailed explanation in the edit summary. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 10:59 (UTC)
- Yes, but this is about airlines, so close but also different. I decided to start a sister project to that, Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines to allow discussion about this since it is as important as the airport project. I'll flesh that out and see where it leads. Thanks for the reminder about projects. Vegaswikian 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
How to fix systematic misspelling of "threshold" as "threshhold" throughout Wikipedia?
Is there any way other than manually plowing through? I can't program a bot, so I think someone before suggested contacting a bot person? How could this have happened? Thanks, Spalding July 4, 2005 10:17 (UTC)
- There's several typo projects running. You could leave a note at the Humanbot project... - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 11:00 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I did leave a note there, but I'm not really sure how this bot stuff works - it looks like there are no active projects. I downloaded Greasemonkey and the user script, but I have to wait for a project to use them? I'll try to learn a little about Greasemonkey first. Spalding July 4, 2005 19:33 (UTC)
- No, with this particular thing you have to wait for him to run the bot. Either that or code your own. Each bot has to be given special permission to run, as it could easily **** things up. Master Thief GarrettTalk 5 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
Can't move page to deleted redir page--why?
Someone created Francais Blanc et Noir as a redirect to Francais blanc et noir instead of moving the latter to the former. So I deleted the former, but now when I try to move Francais blanc et noir to Francais Blanc et Noir, it says I can't because the articles have the same name. I've never had this problem doing this same thing before. Anyone know what's up? I don't see anything reported in the 1.5 bugs. Elf | Talk 5 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
Thx. I wonder what the problem was? Elf | Talk 5 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
- could have been the database timing lag: it does not update immediately, if you just deleted the page. Wait about a minute or so next time. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
I waited about 5 minutes, actually, and tried again. Maybe I should've waited even longer. But--I have no patience! That's why I hang around on Wikipedia instead of doing something that actually pays the bills. :-) Elf | Talk 5 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
- You do realize the move destination is the same as the current page by default? You probably typed the destination in the reason field when it didn't work. - Mgm|(talk) July 5, 2005 11:43 (UTC)
Appropriateness of a link on "Post Apocalyptic Science Fiction" page
I've never seen this before, wondering where to go to find where this sort of thing is arbited. On this page (Post Apocalyptic SF), there is a link to the novel "Full Circle" by an author named Boyle. The link is not to a Wiki page, but to a personal website describing the book. The URL indicates that it belongs to either the author of the book, or a relative. This seems to go against the rules about promoting oneself. The book is published by controversial vanity press PublishAmerica as well (in other words, this is not a writer who was published professionally by a legitimate publisher). My understanding was that it was not okay to have inner links go to outside pages, only websites listed below the main article, and that this kind of publicity for one's self is a no-no.67.10.131.229 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
- There are occasions when an inline external link is apropriate, but in a long list of internal links is clearly not one of them. As we don't appear to have an article on the book - and from your comments it doesn't appear noteable enough for one - I have removed the entry from the list completely. We're not exactly short of examples in the list so one fewer entry wont harm it. (The page in question is Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic science fiction). Thryduulf 6 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)
Issue of trust and copyright paranoia: complicated process to upload pictures which were already permitted
I placed several photos in the Opus Dei article, my first ever attempt. I was given permission by the organization to publish them under GFDL. However, an official of Wikipedia who was editing the article (just to state the facts: he made anti-Opus Dei edits) did not allow the photos to appear in the article due to copyright issues.
He said: If the photos were commissioned, we need clear evidence of that. Stating that they were published on the Opus Dei website and you have permission from them to republish them is not sufficient. What was the nature of the contract, and who entered it? You need permission from the specific person who entered the contract with the photographer, and that contract needs to clearly state that all rights are transferred to the contracting party. Finally, the party holding the copyrights must explicitly agree to release the photos under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar free license (see Wikipedia:Image use policy). In the interest of transparency, it would be best for you to fully document your correspondence in this regard.
I replied: Once I have obtained the correspondence, how will I show it here to prove that it is authentic?
The answer: I would say that putting the text of the correspondence online is sufficient - we try to assume good faith - but that's just my opinion. To get more general feedback on the matter, I suggest visiting the Wikipedia:Village pump.
Please help to clarify what I need to do. I find it strange that this is a very complicated process. I looked at that the other image description pages and the word of the one uploading is trusted. But I am ready to do what is needed. You can check how the exchange went at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opus_Dei Thank you. Walter Ching 7 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
If anyone needs images for articles
I'm making them as requested. User:CAPS LOCK/ImageRequests
I'm posting this under assistance because I've seen a number of people post here asking for somebody to take a photo of foo.
- You might also want to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Requested pictures which is where we normally request pictures. Ojw 21:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
NPOV disputes
Background
A few weeks back I discovered the articles on kilobyte, megabyte, etc. At the time the kilobyte article was strongly worded to suggest that a kilobyte is defined as 1000 bytes and that although other people use another definition (1024 bytes), those people are wrong.
Now I've been working with computers all my life, I'm a professional software developer with a computer science degree. In my experience the 1024-byte kilobyte is by far the most common definition in use. Although it doesn't agree with SI units, the byte is not an SI unit. The term "kilo-" is used by analogy with SI rather that precise agreement with SI. The value of 1024 is useful and is the standard among software developers.
So I immediately recognised this as a POV article, and boldly modified it to better describe my experience of reality. My changes were immediately reverted and I was told that I should discuss any changes I wanted to make on the talk page. This I did, but first I used the template to mark the article as POV. Quickly a minor edit-war eventuated, the other parties removed the POV comment every time they contributed to the discussion.
I realised I was getting too heated about the debate shortly afterward and drew away from editing and contributing to those articles.
Questions
The whole experience leaves me with a few questions:
- What is the process for adding a POV template to the top of an article, and later removing it? I found that it was removed as soon as I put it there. At one point I was accused of not coming on regularly enough, how often is regularly enough?
- I found that I was a lone voice against two or three people defending a extreme point of view. Is there some way to flag a POV dispute to give it wider attention? Hopefully to get neutral people involved?
- Is there a page that tells people what to do in these circumstances? "How to work out your differences?"
Thanks in advance for your help.
Ben Arnold 8 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
- OK, lessee... first of all the thing to do when dealing with POV in an article is find how new it is.
- If something's crept in within about the last three editors--NOT edits, editors, someone with an agenda could add something and it go unnoticed for up to a week--then you'd have more justification for your concerns.
- If it's been in the article for a while it'll require treading carefully.
- Either way, be sure that you raise your concerns BEFORE applying the tag. Leave your concerns there, and let others read it. Give it about a day or so and THEN apply the tag.
- The thing is that "silently" applying the tag can rub people up the wrong way. They've been happily editing an article and suddenly have some upstart come and (indirectly) accuse them of being "bigoted" by labelling "their" article as having a questionable POV. "How dare you?!? I know my topic!" they cry! So you must always question first, and mark later. MUCH later, ideally.
- Backing out was VERY wise of you! :) The lack of contact (or of a target to hurl abuse at) allows everyone to cool down, and, hopefully, allow a compromise to be made.
- A POV tag is added when there's a clearly visible dispute well underway with lots of name-calling and nasty stuff. Therefore someone adds a POV tag, people stop killing each other, and when everyone's calm it gets removed. But if something's crept in and no-one disputes its rectification, there is no POV issue at all, a quick edit or two will fix it without needing the tag in the first place.
- In the case you speak of it is likely because there was no sign of a dispute (as yet) on the Talk page. Also see the above about the order of "accusation" :)
- As for not being on often enough, that's ridiculous. Certainly if someone asks for your input and you have access to a computer you should do your best to reply to them, but as for putting in a set number of hours, no... we're not getting paid by WP, so there's no expectation of you doing your "20-hour week" for us! Just come on when and if you feel like it. :)
- Um, not sure. If things get really gnarly you can ask for Arbitration, but I'd say there would be other ways. For example posting about it here would probably be acceptable (IMO of course), or, alternately, find a "parent page" and discuss there. For example, say there was a dispute on the Star Wars: Episode I page. You could simply go to Star Wars and tell the editors there to get a wider audience.
- Um, I think Wikipedia:Wikistress covers some things but that's more about how to not get into a battle in the first place!
- A POV tag is added when there's a clearly visible dispute well underway with lots of name-calling and nasty stuff. Therefore someone adds a POV tag, people stop killing each other, and when everyone's calm it gets removed. But if something's crept in and no-one disputes its rectification, there is no POV issue at all, a quick edit or two will fix it without needing the tag in the first place.
- Anyway, hope that covered everything all... um... clearly. And if not ask some more! :) Master Thief GarrettTalk 8 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)
- I suspect I was one of the "extremists" you were referring to. Let me try and explain what happened. You made an edit which added a few paragraphs to Kilobyte discussing the hard drive manufacturers problem ("The other definition, 1,000 bytes, was first used by manufacturers of data storage devices as advertising spin to inflate claims about the storage capacity of their products.") Because there was already an in-depth discussion of this at Binary prefix, your edit was reverted without a proper explanation, and I can see why you were annoyed at this.
- Unfortunately what then happened was that there was a war over whether the POV tag should be present on the article until your points, most of which were totally valid, were discussed. I and the others found it irritating that you wanted the article to remain tagged for several days over some quite trivial and easily-fixed problems, and it seemed that you were more interested in keeping the article tagged than in improving it. Now I see that you simply wanted to point people at the discussion, and I apologise for calling you a troublemaker.
- I think the general idea is that the POV tag is directed at casual users rather than editors. It's supposed to alert them not to take everything the article says at face value. On articles like these which deal with pure matters of fact, it seems silly to have such a prominent alert when the dispute is only about small matters of wording or balance.
- I'm sorry that you were discouraged. In arguments like these, I often find it helpful to remember that I'm here to make as good an encyclopedia as possible, and that's more important than having articles worded as strongly as I would sometimes like. In the case of Kilobyte, there was a lack of balance before you came along, and your actions have caused it to be corrected. So relax. :) – Smyth\talk 8 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)
Thanks for all the food for thought. This is the first "battle" I've been a major particpant in and I hoped to learn some lessons from it.
I guess the main thing I learned was that if I find an article that seems to need a lot of change, be circumspect and make changes slowly. This gives other people a chance to vet each change. My biggest mistake was to change a whole lot of things at once.
If I get a surge of enthusiasm at some stage I might see if I can consolidate this and write something to give people a bit of advice for how to deal with these situations. No promises though!
Ben Arnold 9 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
Is there any way to edit an edit summary after saving an edit?
Like comments in computer programs, edit summaries can often be out of date, a revision or two behind the actual edit. For instance, in my recent edit to Common sense, I wikified a book title, and needed a couple of iterations to get it right, but since I added the edit summary first, I forgot to update that, so it points to a red link. One thing I may do is get in the habit of leaving the edit summary until I am done previewing and I am satisfied with the edit. But is there any way to go back and edit a saved one?
Also, on edit summaries, good ones would save a lot of time by allowing the reader to avoid opening the article based on the descriptiveness of the edit summary, but all too often they are blank. Also, is including links in them a good thing to do? I like those as a reader. I'll look for a guideline. Thanks, Spalding July 8, 2005 16:41 (UTC)
- Although not pratical, or recommended, an admistrative rollback would erase the entry, and the edit, I believe.
As far as the link in the summary, do you mean the section link? If so, it's just a shortcut to allow someone to get to that section to see that area and/or change. If it doesnt work, that happens all to often anyway, and I just scroll down to where I need to be, or hit diff to see what was modified. I have good faith that most registered users are making good edits, so shorter summaries do not catch my eye as much as a blank summary or an anon edit. <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll just try to be more careful - oops! I should have checked the talk page for Wikipedia:edit summary first (Wikipedia_talk:Edit_summary). There is an extensive discussion on the subject there that includes how to make a dummy edit for the purpose of correcting an erroneous edit summmary. Spalding 21:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
What do I do about this "problem" article?
I have stumbled upon the entry Goon of Fortune which strikes me as something that should be drastically modified or even deleted from Wikipedia (The entry gives the instructions for a drinking game). Though the content of the entry certainly seems problematic to me, I can't really fit it into a category of something Wikipedia is not, and I can't find a strong clear reason it should be deleted. What is the best thing to do with this article? MinorEdit July 9, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
- Is it verifiable? Is it notable? -- Jmabel | Talk July 9, 2005 01:01 (UTC)
- It looks like it may be a how-to more suitable for Wikibooks. --Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 01:09 (UTC)
Drawing Graphics in WIKIPEDIA
Hello WIKI-FOLK,
I'm a real newbie, so pardon if I'm asking a dumb question in the wrong place.
I have a notion that at some stage, after lurking & learning, I'd like to contribute a page about a topic which enthuses me, and I haven't seen explicitly seen (yet - I'm not real good at searching) in the WIKIPEDIA.
The topic will require me to draw "straight lines" and "circles" and "ellipses."
Is ther a graphic tool available from the WIKI-PEDIA toolbox - or should I use an external tool, and import an image ?
Thanks for your time, ozogg.
- You could try any of the programs from our List of vector graphics editors page. To import it into Wikipedia, you will probably want to save it as a PNG file, and then go to [[Special::Upload]] to upload it. Ojw 21:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
'One word for many' softwares
It is easy enough to find the meaning(s) of a single word, with very effective and useful tools like wikipedia available. But what happens when you have more than one word, like a phrase or an expression? Are there any such tools available for download or on a CD? I mean something like a revese dictionary. If there are, I would be really pleased to know about them. -anon
- I would say Google with quotes around the phrase is the way to go. Example: Goon of fortune Google search Spalding 21:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why is Disneyland Resort Station (MTR) protected?
There's nothing in the page history or on the Talk page to indicate any past problems warranting protection. Russ Blau (talk) 16:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- This has no entry on the Protected page list and doesn't even have the {{protected}} tag! Please raise this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and I'm sure it will be quickly opened (if it isn't already as I type this). GarrettTalk 21:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- 08:43, June 10, 2005 PZFUN protected Disneyland Resort Station (MTR) (protecting until naming consensus is reached.)
I don't think a naming discussion warrants a complete protection, maybe it's protected against moves only? I'll unprotect if it's not the case. - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Questionable image additions
I'm not sure if this counts as vandalism, but if it does, you can move this message to the VIP page. If you look at the contributions of Inhighspeed, the user seems to be adding pictures to biographical articles some of which already have pictures on them. Most of them seem to be of celebrities without shirts on, when you could easily find better pictures of these people with shirts. It's one thing if it the pictures we in context of the article – some of the pictures were of people who played Tarzan, but clearly you can find and use more relevant pictures of David Arquette and Erik Estrada. Adding three pictures of [Tobey Maguire] without a shirt really doesn't add much to an article. I've marked a few of the user's orphaned uploaded images for deletion. Can anyone assist with the proper course of action to take? --Jtalledo (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. While shirtless photos of celebrities like wrestlers, athletes, models,etc. is appropriate, its questionable for others, especially if they're not known for their physique. If it's someone like Usher or LL Cool J who regularly appear shirtless in their music videos its fine; otherwise its just's not very professional for Wikipedia. --Madchester 06:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Jtalledo, the proper course of action would first be to chill out. You seem to be on a witchhunt here. Okay, I'll admit I've added some pics of my favorite celebs shirtless, but I don't think it counts as vandalism. If any of the pics were inappropriate, then I apologize -- however, just because a pic "doesn't add much to an article," doesn't connote ill intention, and certainly not vandalism. I think you should just calm down and get a hold of yourself. I've done work on other articles that do not include just adding shirtless pics. And I haven't removed other pics from the same articles, as you have alleged in other places on the site. You might in the future contact someone through their Talk page if you wish to discuss something with them, instead of putting libelous talk about them around the site. I'm sure some might consider you an asset to Wikipedia, but you may wish to come down off your high horse, and brush up on your etiquette before going any further.Inhighspeed 00:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, according to Wikipedia etiquette, you are supposed to notify someone on their Talk page if you put up an image of theirs for deletion, which you did not do. By the way, you sure seem to spend a lot of your time criticizing and editing what others do. I guess it's easier to find fault with others than with ourselves.Inhighspeed 01:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Use of the User monobook.js page?
I tried the following as suggested: User:Spalding/monobook.js. I refreshed the cache, but nothing happens in either Firefox or IE, and javascript is enabled in both. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Thanks, Spalding 22:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, try visiting a page you've never ever seen (Special:Random) to see if the new code will appear on it.
- Failing that, see if your CSS is faulty. Try changing the entirety of it to something simple like
a:visited { color: #7755dd; }
- And see if that changes things. In the case of this example, you should be able to see purple-pink visited links instead of the dark blue color. If not, um, hm. But try that :) GarrettTalk 23:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- What I am trying to do is use javascript in monobook.js to force an edit summary - nothing with CSS. But I am seeing nothing at all as a result of having code in the monobook.js
- Oh! JS, right! :) Um, maybe you're using code MediaWiki doesn't like or something? I really don't know... you'd think someone would have replied by now... hmmm... GarrettTalk 01:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Try an alert() at the top of addForceSummary. Last time I tried playing with monobook.js, I couldn't get document.addEventListener to work; the function added as a listener was never called. If you manage to make it work, please tell me how you did it. --cesarb 01:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I did at least get Hello world to work as a very nice sanity test with the following snippet from that article (without the quotes, which I hope will prevent execution in this page): "javascript:alert('Hello, world!'); "
- (BTW, how do you get those nice boxes with the dotted line outlines?) I don't see any markup for it in edit view. Oh my, the answers are breeding more questions as usual for me! Thanks, I'm at least started now. Another question: wouldn't a link to Hello world be a good addition to almost any article on a programming language? It sure helped me here. Spalding 21:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Try an alert() at the top of addForceSummary. Last time I tried playing with monobook.js, I couldn't get document.addEventListener to work; the function added as a listener was never called. If you manage to make it work, please tell me how you did it. --cesarb 01:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Link to Next section
Need VFD closed
A VFD was created for In flagrante delicto on April 21 and it seems to have been forgotten about. Can an admin close it please? Thanks! Tufflaw 15:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- It's a incomplete nomination, where step 3 was never made. When you find one of these old VfDs, look at the Special:Whatlinkshere output for it; you will find no link from the VfD log pages. You just need to complete the nomination (adding to today's log, just like I did for this one) and wait some more days. --cesarb 15:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Open Tasks - Project Clarification
I decided to take on one of the stated requests:to create a page of Greek municipalities by area (see Community Portal - Open Tasks - Requests - Greek cities by area). My problem is that Wikipedia already has a List of municipalities of Greece, many of which also include the area.
How do I find out more information about this request and what is exactly being asked?
Tim Graff 02:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin
Someone please help SlimVirgin. Her edits on July 11, 2005 at Talk:Terri Schiavo indicate levels of arrogance so uncharacteristic of her, I feel someone who knows her well should have a talk with her. Hope you get better soonest Ms. Virgin !!! 4.250.168.51 03:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
1923 PD Rule
My understanding is that the PD status of works published before 1923 applies only to items published in the USA. So, everything, and anything else does not fall under this rule. So, how is Britannica in the Public Domain? Peregrine981 04:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Um, I'm fairly certain that it's the other way around--that in the US things are PD if before 19XX (varies between mediums) whereas elsewhere, even the country of origin, it might not be. The US cannot possibly take thousands of law clauses from the various countries into effect in every case, so judges everything solely under their own law. So that's no doubt the explanation you're looking for. GarrettTalk 09:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I thought it was wikimedia policy to apply the law of the country of creator if possible.
- Also, isn't it kind of silly to label things as "public domain" without specifying what country it is public domain in? It certainly seems as though legal complications could certainly arise, with this kind of simplistic labelling. Peregrine981 11:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- The 1911 ed of Britannica was published in New York. All editions since then have been American. Apwoolrich 12:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Also, isn't it kind of silly to label things as "public domain" without specifying what country it is public domain in? It certainly seems as though legal complications could certainly arise, with this kind of simplistic labelling. Peregrine981 11:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, then it all works out, although I still think its a bit misleading to have such a general PD licence, when the picture is clearly more complicated than we are presenting it, especially since wikipedia has such an international readership. Peregrine981 13:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Category name changes
This may not be the right place to post this, but there are problems with some category and article name changes that are going through at the moment. Someone has recently changed the lead article Cinema to Film. The naming issue had been discussed on the talk page, but there was never any consensus for a change. However, someone made the change themselves, and has now argued that Film is now the default term and has listed all categories that use the word Cinema in the title for renaming. This has been presented as a simple change based on the lead article being called Film and so people are generally voting for the changes. However, Cinema articles are being forced into a change to Film when it is not appropriate. An attempt to change Category:Cinema by country to Category:Film by country was resisted, but other categories are being changed en masse on the grounds that Film is the default term, when this has never been agreed. I'm not sure how to deal with this, I could always change the lead article back to Cinema but there must be some mechanism for resolving an issue like this. JW 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why the heck isn't CAMERA film at Film?!? I mean, cinema may be a term on the decline but at least it wasn't ambiguous as to what the page would be about. "Film" could mean any of a dozen things. Hm. Well I think it was a good idea to bring it here as there's bound to be a solution--maybe even call a Wikipedia-wide vote or something? GarrettTalk 09:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure about the articles, I proposed the Category:Cinema by country → Category:Film by country, only as a category standardization. I think there was another one after this, but would have to go check. You may want to take a look at WP:ANI, I think this might be the same user on Talk:Film. Actually, I just went through the history of cinema, and it was merged with film by Grunt on 18:36, 17 August 2004. Still need to discuss the further changes and happenings on all of this, concerning the direction of the articles and categories, if that users persists (User:12.73.198.28). <>Who?¿? 10:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Can't figure out how to add info to article
Thought I was fairly intelligent until I tried to understand the "how to's" in Wikipedia.
My original reason for trying to get to a 'post message' page was about the featured article on the Civil Air Patrol. The content here makes it sound like big Boy Scouts. In Yolo County, and other counties, in California the CAP is very active in supporting both sheriff and federal CAMP to constantly patrol areas looking for cannibus, mapping it and calling in the cops and federal agents. This is an on-going active participation in drug enforcement by CAP that has even been written up in the Davis Enterprise some years back.
There is no mention of their DEA-related activities in the article.
My guess is that this self-selecting group (pilots who choose to be in CAP and are accepted into) probably are the more Neo-con conservative types who wish they could actively (but safely) participate in law enforcement and this fulfills all their fantasies. It wouldn't suprise me if the DEA has some way of directing money toward their gasoline and other flying expenses, but then again, these guys have enough money to own planes and fly so maybe the DEA doesn't have to share.
I would like to clarify that I do not use cannibus and never have, although I am a strong supporter of medical cannibus. Also, the huge growing operations in the public forests are usually done by violent criminals and I don't mind them being busted. I do have great objection to CAP patrolling over private property. The article only mentions "search and rescue"--their extensive law enforcement involvement needs to be added.
Crusader Rabbit
Wow! Talk about feeling really stupid...Now I can't seem to find the 'send' button. I can find how to save it (although why and where are mysteries to me) and how to preview it (maybe that will lead to a send button--Nope, no send button there either). The 'show changes' is also a mystery. I'll try them and hope my e-mail isn't erased.
Is there a SIMPLE way to direct people with additional info or correction of an article on how it can get added--either directly or to the oversight group. I did try using the "edit" button but it only produced long lists of things that seemed irrelevant to what I wanted to do.
The "Show changes" button is such a great tease. Wish I could understand how to make the changes it says it will show. Save page indicates it will save my changes. Well, this is getting very confusing. The headline for this page says "Village Pump (assistance) (comment)", not that it directly edits or alters any page or article.
Templates: I tried to see what they did but just got more mysteries.
PLEASE!!!! Can't there be just a SIMPLE send button to get messages to you people?
Do I have to have an account and be logged in in order to communicate with you? I'll try that. Just did that but doesn't seem to provide any remedy.
- It is the save button. You just save to the page you are editing. (Previewing to make sure it looks good is appreciated). If you can edit then you can make changes. (A few pages are protected from editing and the edit button won't be present). Discussion, comments, questions about changes, etc. should go to the talk page, reached by the discussion button. RJFJR 15:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- A few other things I came back to add: You can sign your name by using ~~~~ (it will be replaced, except in this case because I explicitly told it not to). The signature will also be a link to your page so we can leave a message and you'll get a 'new message' message. Please remember to use the edit summary when you post messages. RJFJR 15:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Revert war @ Wolverine (comics)
It's between new users User:ScifiterX and User:Nightscream concerning the level of detail there should be on speculation (or perhaps fanon) of Wolverine's abilities. ScifiterX wants none whatsoever (trying to adhere to canon?) whereas Nightscream wants some information on the "debate", and/or inconsistency of the issue given there is currently little said on the matter. I have no expertise on Comics; so I have no idea what is appropriate, but since Nightscream requested assistance from me in dispute resolution I'm posting here. (This dispute is also on User talk:Nightscream#Editing Wolverine) - RoyBoy 800 21:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's a one sided account. You might want to talk to User:SoM as well, and take a look at Talk:Wolverine (comics), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics and I think I have a few messages concerning the situation on my talk page User Talk:Steve block. I've tried to keep my hands out of it because I haven't as yet managed to read the information Nightscream wants inserted, it being about ten paraghraphs (off the top of my head). It's mostly unneccesary. What it boils down to is that superheroes are fictional characters featured in serial fiction, and as such their abilities, powers and character tend to be written inconsistently, given that they are written by a huge number of seperate writers. Whilst nobody denies that point, at least as I can understand the debate which is formatted very badly, Nightscream seems to want nothing less than to detail every single inconsistency. Have a look at the revert history to see his insertion. I confess to being a coward, I started to try and copyedit the article to a better standard but got scared off. I've backed away because the whole situation seems unmanageable, or at least too time consuming. Apologies. I personally would have thought the fact that Wolverine was a fictional superhero character would have clued people in to the fact that he isn't going to be portrayed consistently, but I'm certainly not going to object if a note to the effect that that superheroes are fictional characters featured in serial fiction, and as such their abilities, powers and character tend to be written inconsistently is inserted, however it would then have to be inserted into all superhero comic book characters, and would need to gain consensus. Steve block 21:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)