Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
Saints Row Wiki
There's a wiki site for saints row if anyone's interested. We could sure use some contributions. I think the last one was by me. Here's the link: saintsrow.wikia.com - Aspiring Astronomer Racecarlock
PATROL!
List of unpatrolled pages
Everyone, hop on and do just 10. Come on, you can do it! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am having trouble with the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" button sometimes appearing, sometimes not. For a highlighted yellow item I have to try opening it in multiple tabs to get a version with the button. Is anyone else having this problem?--Commander Keane (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- The only time it doesn't show up for me is if I come to the page from somewhere other than Special:NewPages, such as through search. If I go through NewPages and the message appears, then make an edit, the message will no longer appear. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes that was it, thank you.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- The only time it doesn't show up for me is if I come to the page from somewhere other than Special:NewPages, such as through search. If I go through NewPages and the message appears, then make an edit, the message will no longer appear. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am having trouble with the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" button sometimes appearing, sometimes not. For a highlighted yellow item I have to try opening it in multiple tabs to get a version with the button. Is anyone else having this problem?--Commander Keane (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Corvus cornixtalk 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- NP patrol is permanently backlogged. Pages are removed from the list after 30 days, whether they've been patrolled or not. At the current rate, there are a good number of pages that simply "expire" in that fashion rather than being patrolled. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest for everyone who reads this to just pull up the link once a day and do an "open new tab" (middle button) on -say- 10 pages at random, and see if anything interesting pops up. Hey, it's free edit-count, don't people need that for RFA these days or something? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Pop quiz: Why should people click "at random"?
- Ha ha. I started patrolling NewPages about a day before you posted this. I will either a) ignore things I can't quickly decide; b) genuinely attempt to fix articles that seem notable, but lack something important; or c) put up for speedy deletion. Clicking the [mark this page as patrolled] doesn't affect your edit count, though. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. You actually need to do something useful to the article too! O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ha. I started patrolling NewPages about a day before you posted this. I will either a) ignore things I can't quickly decide; b) genuinely attempt to fix articles that seem notable, but lack something important; or c) put up for speedy deletion. Clicking the [mark this page as patrolled] doesn't affect your edit count, though. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest for everyone who reads this to just pull up the link once a day and do an "open new tab" (middle button) on -say- 10 pages at random, and see if anything interesting pops up. Hey, it's free edit-count, don't people need that for RFA these days or something? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Pop quiz: Why should people click "at random"?
Everyone who is currently checking the unpatrolled page, raise your hand! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
CheckUser data now kept for five months instead of three
Thought I'd point out this change to MediaWiki, since they have a tendency to make these changes without telling anyone. (Your browser's user-agent string is stored, too, in case you didn't know) -- Gurch (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a default. I remember hearing at one point that wikimedia keeps checkuser data forever. --Random832 (contribs) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, I heard it's kept for "a couple of weeks". The fact that your user-agent string is stored isn't that surprising, it's mentioned in WP:CheckUser. What would be interesting is if CheckUser is able to reveal anything not available in the apache server's access.log or whatever the access log is. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- And the fact that the two of you heard completely different things, both wrong, only proves my point. Wikimedia's checkuser data is kept for the default amount of time specified in MediaWiki. Anyway, turns out that Tim Starling didn't like the change, so reverted it -- Gurch (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis
- GENERAL LANDSCAPE
- In the ambiguous zone of cultural struggle to which falls discussion of politics, philosophy, and religion, citation for Wikipedia page construction amounts to the presentation of cultural support for bias. Where esoterica becomes so sparse as to glean insufficient cultural support in the way of books, journals, or even many web pages, the contested contributions are repeatedly created, then "edited" (effaced) by opposition factions to stubs, then removed.
- SPECIFIC EFFACEMENT TACTICS
- One encroachment device serving to facilitate this is the category marker. Proliferation of the use of pejorative category identification facilitates the infringement of pages and categories with critical oversight from which this effacement may take place. Those who have a vested interest in seeing particularly targeted categories or pages effaced merely patrol the zones of their interest and repeatedly employ the Weapon of Effacement.
- INSTANCES OF DEPTH PRESENTATION OF EFFACEMENT
- At least 3 instances of attempts to bringing this problem to greater light have recently been attempted here at Wikipedia. I presume that there may have been others, but how to see and recognize them is not immediately apparent to me, let alone how to address it with any deftness, or start campaigns or proposals to rectify it (i have neither the time nor the interest to do more than analyze it and comment upon it, myself). Therefore i'll point out these 3 instances here so that others might track them down somewhat if they have the interest to do so and/or use them to their advantage:
- -- One instance of bringing the matter up on the Village Pump as a cite taging and culture war, along with a suggestion for a solution to this problem: edit-credits.
- -- One instance of attempting to address a particular user's employment of the Weapon of Effacement, presented as an ANI-Proposal.
- -- Realizing the depth of the cultural struggle ongoing at Wikipedia, another tactic was attempted in association with this problem: the placement of defensive category tags upon the categories and pages under assault. Here is the discussion of the Call for Deletion of these new tags, wherein the whole of the issue is aired with particular reference to Pseudoscience as an abused, pejorative category tag and the remedial, defensive category tag is supported.
- HIERARCHY OF WIKIS: The Bowl-Shape Wikipedia
- Imagine that the ideal Wikipedia is a sphere-shape of knowledge or data. What is being created instead, by virtue of the Weapon of Effacement, is a bowl-shape of hard scientific data supporting a fuzzy or fluffy fluctuating residue of unchallenged popular culture, entertainment, and other matters which those employing the Weapon of Effacement have little interest in combatting. Repeated attempts are being made to extend this bowl toward greater depth of record and therefore toward the spherical shape of its ideal, and in some cases (at least temporarily) these extensions remain, often under a heavy burden of supporting the point of view of scientific skeptics who have infiltrated their categories and required conformance to their citation and support-standards alongside their negating evaluations.
- Those who are not willing or interested in arguing with or combatting with the editors employing the Weapon of Effacement (i.e. without an investment in Wikipedia.org specifically) are gradually shifting to wiki projects that are more friendly and supportive of their interests. These, by virtue of their experimental nature and their dependence upon private individuals (rather than institutions) to support and maintain them, will of course have a fluctuating existence en par with what are called MUDs or, in general, web pages. They will come into existence, thrive for a time, and then go out of existence due to a lack of administrative/technical support or participant interest. Their GNU Licensing feature, however, makes it possible for what is constructed on these wikis to be archived and moved forward to other venues if obtained prior to their disappearance.
- With the proliferation of wiki software and the growing interest in it as a means of presenting knowledge, more and more wikis are coming into and going out of existence. The more that exist, the more specialized is their application and what type of material that they are hosting. We are already seeing numerous wikis that feature the works of prominent authors, for example. These are but the preliminary wave of the type of condition which may yet come to be, along with numerous specialized wiki projects by factions whose principles or policies are different than that of Wikipedia (whether with regard to participation, such as with Citizendium and its requirement of full disclosure for participants, or with regard to article writing/editing itself, such as Kiamagic, whose premise is apparently anti-authoritarian).
- Projecting into the future somewhat, and supposing that nothing about the methodology of Wikipedia will in fact change due to its momentum and the character of those assembled to pursue its aims, what will develop will be numerous wikis with differentiated protection and orientation within the zones of knowledge in which they may seek to specialize. Rather than bowl-shapes, they will assume all manner of appearance, metaphorically speaking, and be comprised of less and more coherent and supportable data as well as coverage. Due to the fact that so many of these wikis are accepting the GNU Licensing standard for text, however, this makes possible what we might call a 'meta-wiki'1, which will effectively become a 'Best of Wikis', using the 'You Edit It' wiki backdrop as raw material to incorporate information from all of the various protected wikis operating, but excluding by editing standards and top-down direction (much like a conventional encyclopedia or other print reference source) the factional disputes and net results of the Weapon of Effacement that may be employed at any specific wiki due to cultural struggle.
- HIERARCHY OF WIKIS: Spectrum From Personal to Meta
- With this in mind, contribution to wikis will perhaps change somewhat in that wiki software (or something much like it, displaying knowledge sets more adroitly) will be employed extensively and having a wiki will become as commonplace as having a web page. What will apply at that point will be what i call a 'hierarchy of wikis'. Individual users will create their own knowledge sets of varying type, quality, and extensiveness (prolific writers of encyclopedic knowledge effectively replicating or improving what has emerged from conventional wiki projects), and these may or may not accept the GNU Licensing standard of copyrights. Focussing solely on those which do, the interchange between them will reduce what we are seeing now as the employment of the Weapon of Effacement (due to our limited perspective on wikis and their importance to overall knowledge presentation) to the character of a boundary-setting device used by factions and editors to limit what is contained within any specific wiki based on its standards of knowledge vetting or inclusion.
- Extending from these individual wikis operating in numerous literate places in cyberspace will be intermediate 'edited wikis' which feature collection caches from GNU Licensed personal wikis of a specialized type but which do not attempt to achieve the same level of inclusion as an encyclopedia. Up on the top of the heap of these individual and edited wikis (or at the bottom of a collection trough, if you prefer) will be what i am calling 'the meta-wiki' which attempts to actually produce the sphere ideal that Wikipedia may one day become.
- CONCLUSION
- As long as Wikipedia supports and allows the employment of the Weapon of Effacement in its policies and procedures, so it will effectively exclude to other wikis those editors whose efforts might have been employed to achieve its lofty goals (and thereby lose valuable resources). Instead of a complete encyclopedia, what will be created by Wikipedia is a restricted edifice of substantial worth to a specific group of people, a helpful reference source on topics substantiated by conventional citation or so fluffy and peripheral as not to interest any in dispute.2
- Let this post stand as a prophetic and referential strand between the Wikipedia that exists today, the wikis that exist in comparison to it, and the Meta-wiki that Wikipedia should eventually become. It should be seen as an interested attempt to describe or troubleshoot from a distance what it may take decades to realize and effect in pursuit of encyclopedic coverage of contested zones of knowledge. It is based on peripheral observation of the dynamics and social policies which currently exist, as well as a brief and intriguing foray into Wikipedia before moving on to wikis where esoteric data is allowed greater protection against those opposed to it.
- NOTES:
- 1 -- This is not to be confused with the "Meta-Wiki" which coordinates all Wikimedia projects.
- 2 -- This may seem to be burying an evaluation of what is ostensibly a significant problem at Wikipedia, but as there doesn't seem to be any obvious place wherein such problems might be brainstormed, and i have here no specific proposal to put forward, this will have to do. Feel free to copy this essay with proper reference to other venues should you desire, or simply make reference to it in the archives of Wikipedia's Village Pump, where it will lay indefinitely for future generations.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
At a quick skim, the above may have something to say. It seems, however, to make an awful lot of use of neologisms and imprecise jargon; I didn't have the patience to slog through it, and there seems to be nothing like an executive summary. Does someone care to provide one? - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- transplanted with additions from JMabel Talk:
- * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia. ... -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- If something is actually "esoteric," doesn't that pretty much preclude anyone with inside knowledge writing about it in an encyclopedia, in a citable manner? Conversely, certainly there is nothing to stop those people from publishing elsewhere, either in a wiki or in any other form. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- re 'esoteric' -- see the Wikipedia org page which linked from that original essay. 'small' or 'inner' as regards the terminological portion 'eso' is relative. some esoteric subjects are very well-sourced, even by unaffiliated individuals, academics, and are broadly covered by a variety of quality interests, pro and con. there is nothing consistently which makes esotericism secret, though some of it may be so. citation is strictly possible, but it will depend on interest in keeping supportable data in Wikipedia by those who aren't exercizing hostile cite tagging, hostile category/page tagging and the Weapon of Effacement to eradicate to stubs what they oppose, ideologically (there is already Wikiversity interest in this matter, and i suspect that some portion of this message is getting through the hostile editors mentioned).
- re elsewhere publishing -- very obviously so, but it is NOT in the interest of Wikipedia to see substance-contributors flee there based on hostile editing, and it is not to the public's best interest to see Wikipedia, which is given heavy weight by Google, show up above it with less substance and depth than third-party interests. we're not talking about function here but the application toward and against principles. supplementally, re 'meta-wikis' -- there appears to be one in existence already at Veropedia. I contend this is a trend that will continue in part as a response to the enabling of the Weapon of Effacement and cultural struggle as it continues unabated.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The poster appears to be complaining about the existence of Category:Pseudoscience in the most roundabout way imaginable. They also don't like {{fact}} tags because they think the demand for scientific references with regard to subjects that claim to be science is unfair. --erachima talk 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- tl;dr. Corvus cornixtalk 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Abridged version: I think the poster is complaining about mass amounts of percieved bias in articles concerning Pseudoscience. He's been doing various edits and most are deleted or removed by editors, check his contribs. Basically he's saying most editors, admins, and bureaucrats are biased and in some sort of cabal, and Wikipedia's structure does not allow opposition, as we use policies for deletion. Something about original research, too.
- He cites a Village pump policy discussion and an ANI-proposal by his wife (who in turn seems to have a conflict of interest problem regarding WP:AUTO), a request for explanation of his very major editing concerning Category:Pseudoscience, a reverting of all of it because of that, a proceeding complaint about how the category is currently biased, and the creation of an "opposing" category which was deleted with an overwhelming majority, citing WP:POINT. They also have their own web pages. [1][2][3]
- I strongly suggest finding someone to explain Wikipedia to him, but he has noted(at the bottom) that he is unwilling to make a bigger, perhaps proper protest due to this bias, and the tediousness of the policies. I suggest something like ANI if everyone believes that it cannot be done. Either way, I don't think this belongs here. - Zero1328 Talk? 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- where does it belong?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- tl;dr. Celarnor Talk to me 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, beyond evangelizing, the original poster doesn't propose a solution to address his perceived problem, nor ask for help developing one; what exactly do you want us to do? Celarnor Talk to me 05:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- If this is not the proper place where such an observation of a perceived, extensive, ongoing problem at Wikipedia may be stored and allowed to remain, for reference by interested others, then please point out where it should be moved and i'll helpfully do that. I could move it to a non-Wikipedia website (more hostile and less cooperative ventures have been undertaken by such sites as (especially) WikiTruth and WikiReview, for example), but i understand that Wikipedia may have some forum or outlet for discussion and/or consideration of such things and i am attempting to get it recorded for future reference rather than, as with the data about which i am complaining is evaporating, simply effaced from perception by those who have a vested interested in perpetuating their agenda. btw, a helpful description of this 'game' employing the Weapon of Effacement and other hostile technical tagging is a brief essay called 'What is Wikipedia)', which see.
- This is in part why i didn't want to place it on the Policy, Technical, or Proposal sections of the Village Pump, because i could see that it didn't actually qualify for those spots either. Thank you for your constructive assistance.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zero's summation, and repeat Celarnor's question: What do you want? Just that this exists? Ok, you've written it and it exists. Your userpage would have been better since you don't seem to have a solution or a request attached. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- What do i want? An end to the influential cabals in Wikipedia that Jimbo says should not exist. An equitability between Editors and Writers (esp. in the esoteric cats) such that Wikipedia doesn't continue looking like a hack and slash MUD where the content is merely being used for target practice in a game to entertain Editors. A greater accountability than Wikipedia is providing with its anonymization-support about which Larry Sanger and others have objected, left, and which enables the sock-puppetry which is being used in hegemonic cultural warfare. An end to the employment of tactics like hostile cite tagging and hostile tagging of pejorative categories or the enabling of some defensive zone wherein esoteric topics under cultural assault by convetional science apologists may be adequately covered in depth without having to provide real estate for opposing viewpoints. The termination of futile newspeak (it is Orwellian) contending that Wikipedia is not a Battleground (when it is in some places), that cabals should not exist (but they do), and that there are no rules (when there are). Those are the ones that occur to me off the top of my head that are related to this posting.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Orwell also wrote about Double-Speak. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that is what you want. Some of those things (an end to pseudonymity, a space where fringe ideas can be described without reference to mainstream thought) are unlikely to happen as they go against very fundamental cultural aspects of this project, but others are theoretically achievable. What means do you think are most likely to achieve those ends? Naming problems at Wikipedia is trivially easy—believe it or not, you're not the first person to hit upon the MUD analogy, or the first person to get mad about "deletionism". Do you think that posting lengthy and, frankly, somewhat impenetrable sheets of text labeling other editors as "hostile elements" is the way forward? Do you think that by treating Wikipedia as a battleground yourself, you'll convince others to beat their swords into plowshares? If there's a roadmap to becoming a marginalized, foaming malcontent, then you are on what is sadly a well-trod path with a predictable terminus. Venting frustration is potentially a useful preliminary step before taking action to improve a situation; I'm wondering whether you've given thought to making that transition. MastCell Talk 23:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Orwell also wrote about Double-Speak. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I create a wikipedia entry about myself?
I'm not famous or anything, but can I create a mini autobiography on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojorules83 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Only notable people can have articles about them in Wikipedia. You could add a bit about yourself to your user page though. It's here. Algebraist 01:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- isn't notability just a guideline?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:AUTO for our policy on auto-biographies. In short, if you're not notable you certainly should not write one and if you are you should ideally leave it for someone else to write. --Tango (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- But, surely editing the most important encyclopaedia in the world must make someone notable! ;) --UltraMagnus (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
New Wikia: Wiki of Mana! Admin: ME!!!
Link! YAY! Help wanted please! P.S.: About the Mana series, if that isn't already obvious which, IAH, it should be. Yellow Mage (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Best article
What is considered to be Wikipedia's best article? If there is no clear winner, what are considered to be the top choices? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured articles is the best you are going to get.Geni 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- The one on elephants, it's the only article to have another article written about it. --erachima talk 08:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nice : )
- And this isn't in mainspace because..? - jc37 08:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was. It got deleted for being a generally bad idea. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant (wikipedia article) is a pretty good read as well.) --erachima talk 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have tears in my eyes, that was so awesome : )
- Besides the Saint Crispin's Day cheer near the top, my favourite comment by the user was:
The material is clearly inappropriate for the Elephant article, as the history of a wikipedia article about elephants is not information which is notable to know about elephants. It would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self references to discuss the wikipedia article about elephants in the wikipedia article about elephants. This is why we need an article about the wikipedia article about elephants, so that we can discuss this important material. john k 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia and Wikipedians need more days like that, not less : ) - jc37 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was. It got deleted for being a generally bad idea. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant (wikipedia article) is a pretty good read as well.) --erachima talk 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- The one on elephants, it's the only article to have another article written about it. --erachima talk 08:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Barometric pressure page vandalized
The english version page of barometric pressure has been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.48.11 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Survey of Wikipedians
Can anyone help me by explaining when the preliminary results of the survey of Wikipedians undertaken by the Wikimedia Foundation and UNU-MERIT are likely to be available. I believe they were reported to the recent Wikimania conference in Alexandria. I am writing a book on Wikipedia. Dano'sullivan (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Which survey is this? (link?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe he is referring to m:General User Survey and wmf:Press releases/UNU survey agreement or m:Tell us about your Wikipedia. MBisanz talk 16:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
yes, that's the one - the UNU survey mentioned in the press release.Dano'sullivan (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I need some help with Asphalt Mother. The thing isn't an encyclopedia article. I put the {{rewrite}} tag on the article, and the original author keeps removing in, even going so far as to lie about me in their edit summaries. I'm not going to revert them again if they remove it once more, but could I get some further opinions? Corvus cornixtalk 05:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the first obvious question is if it's a notable single or not... if it isn't, then just nominating the thing for deletion may be the best route. I've put a tag on it for inappropriate tone, which might get the point across better, though I don't have great hope in that regard. I'll try talking with him. --erachima talk 06:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do think it's notable based on the band, so that's not my problem, it's just with the tone of the article. Corvus cornixtalk 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Request for a simple bot to update some links
A while ago, the article at constituency used to refer to multiple definitions of the word, both the "people represented" and the "area represented" definitions. The article at electoral district is now no longer a redirect to constituency, and is instead a focused article about the "area represented" definition. Constituency, meanwhile, now is focused on just the people represented - though the article does need expansion, I don't think it's likely to move any time soon since there isn't another word that means the same thing for that definition.
Regardless, there are now a few thousand links that refer to the "electoral district" definition but point to the constituency article. Eventually, every one of them will have to be checked by hand by someone, but I think that enough of them refer to "electoral district" that a bot is justified, and then the few "people represented" exceptions can be reverted by hand. Does someone have a simple bot they can adjust to do this? Scott Ritchie (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- You can request bots at Wikipedia:Bot requests. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment regarding a John Lennon album
I wanted to ask a question on the appropriate "request for comment" page, but the template system for posting is apparently broken, and you can't ask a question over there without going through the template. So may I ask it here?
Another user wants to change the infobox status of Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins from "studio album" to "soundtrack" because Lennon and Ono also made a sort-of-homemade film to go with it, and used the music in the film. I disagreed with this change, because the album is not generally regarded as a soundtrack, was not marketed as one, and it's likely the film was made to promote the album, rather than the music being recorded with the film in mind. The other user came back with "proof" that it's "a soundtrack and not a studio album" (well actually it could be both), citing a reference that covers what was already said. My response was, I'm not contesting that the film exists, but this still isn't what is meant by "soundtrack album". I also suggested that if it were to be classed as a soundtrack, the article should say something about the film. Although the other user changed the article to his proposal, he has not followed this suggestion.
The other user has changed the article twice, and I have reverted both times. I'm hoping to get another opinion and stop an edit war. If you are familiar with the album, have a look at the full discussion on the talk page, and respond there. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Articles selected for Version 0.7
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD and available for free download later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7 based on WikiProjects' quality and importance assessments. A selection algorithm incorporated this assessment data to choose a total of 30,506 articles for this release.
We would like to ask everyone to help us review and improve the articles chosen for this selection. For ease of use, we've divided the articles by WikiProject, but we've also generated listings sorted by overall score. For example, this page shows the articles with the highest scores overall.
If there are any specific articles that you believe should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release to complete topics by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is also available. The list is dynamically generated and updated every hour by seeing if an article includes any cleanup categories, so its data is current. If you see any articles from your WikiProject with urgent problems, please try to fix them if possible. Also, a team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, and additional contributors are encouraged to join.
We are asking WikiProjects to select a "clean" version for the release, and the index for this task is located at User:SelectionBot/0.7. WikiProjects are advised that on October 20, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected.
For the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Knol and Wikipedia
Hi! I'm a Spanish user (I have the sysop flag in Spanish Wikipedia) and I've seen that many Wikipedia artcles have been copied by some Knol users. I don't know if that has been comented here before. The problem seems important, there are a lot of articles copied, in some languages. The problem is the license, because I think Creative Commons 3.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia licensing. Knol shows that problems with copyright must be communicate by mail (not e-mail) but may be there are another way to delete those articles. The language most copied is English, but also Portuguese or Spanish. I've shown that in Spanish Wikipedia, but I've thought that It's better to comment here also. I've started to write a compilation of articles and user involved in a user page, es:Usuario:Millars/Knol (It's wrote in Spanish, but I think it is easy to understand). Is there any expert user in licensing issues? How can we act against that? Knol is new, but when more time past, biggest will be the problem. Thanks a lot and sorry for my English. --Millars (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am not a lawyer, but I seem to remember that at least one CC license is GNUFDL compatible. --UltraMagnus (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- If Creative Commons 3.0 is compatible with our license, then they have to show the origin and main authors, and in almost all those article that information doesn't exist, and the author of the knol apears like the author. --Millars (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- No CC licenes are GFDL compatible in the GFDL->CC dirrection.Geni 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- This has been discussed in considerable detail before (Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 15#Google Knol to copy Wikipedia?). Perhaps you can find some answers there. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Invited to participate in Wikiproject Attica!
Template:Participation Wikiproject Attica --Dimorsitanos (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- And here I thought it was about Attica. Or Attica. Corvus cornixtalk 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Did You Know hooks for the main page
Dear all, I had an idea; many of the one-liners that appear on the front page of wikipedia (from wikipedia's newest articles) are obscure - not surprising really with with 2.5 million articles already written. As I have wended my way 'round the 'pedia, I have noted loads of stubs on some pretty notable things. Recently valhalla was expanded five-fold. Thus, a mini/informal competition of sorts, if folks see something notable/general/humorous/essential knowledge as a stub (i.e. article of fewer than 150 words), why not list it here or better still try and expand it five-fold (with appropriate references) for eligibility on the front page? If you have not the time or resources, listing some really obvious ones might be fun for someone to pick up (and there may be some funky barnstars out there...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Since people are using this as an attempt to silence people discussing various issues, I've written a new essay, to compliment it, and would appreciate thoughts/additions. Cheers. Majorly talk 09:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Uhm... no offense, but that page really doesn't seem to say much. Reminds me of something reassuringly meaningless you'd tell a little kid who was feeling picked on, perhaps concluding with the statement "now let us skip and sing!" --erachima talk 10:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh Wikipedia, what a nice encyclopedia you are! You always cheer me up with your fascinating facts! You're so knowledgeable, I'll bet that you're the most popular encyclopedia in town! And of course you're so much more than an encyclopedia: you're a study guide, a self-help manual; and a shoulder to lean on, too. Thank you for making the world a better place, you old bundle of bytes, you! -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- O hai Derek, good to see you about. Perhaps Wikipedia's greatest achievement is in becoming the most massive source of virtual serendipity on the planet! (link to check I've got that right, yeah, looks ok.) By a remarkable coincidence I've just added a stub on George Graves, a chap with a somewhat improbable Scottish connection. Where would we be without Wikipedia? (rhetorical question, answers like 'out on the golf links' not appreciated). As for the new essay, not sure I see the point of it, but someone somewhere will surely find it invaluable. . dave souza, talk 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Dave. Yes, they haven't managed to get rid of me yet! I read it too. For a complimentary essay, I thought it was a bit short on compliments. Hence my urge to add a few to this thread. Perhaps they should be added to the essay to complement the non-complimentary material. I see that George Graves is up to your usual high standard. I admire your devotion to fleshing out all Darwin's influences and contacts. My own favourite was always Patrick Matthew. I was always impressed that he outlined the theory of evolution by natural selection 30 years before Darwin as part of the appendix to a book on growing trees for shipbuilding of all things! Don't know if that counts as serendipity but it certainly counts as curious! -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is, of course, that Wikipedia *is* an encyclopedia. The essay you wrote doesn't deny that, despite its bold title. In fact, the essay says nothing at all about why Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia or what it is, if not an encyclopedia. It's not a forum, it's not a blog, it's not a self-help guide... quite frankly, Majorly, it's a compilation of articles on many different topics for the purpose of offering factual information about those topics. In other words, it's an encyclopedia. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where does it deny it? The title isn't "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia". It's not just an encyclopedia. The fact we're editing this non-encyclopedia page, and discussing a non-article proves my point. Majorly talk 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I see I've misinterpreted something again! Me and my big mouth... I read too fast! I missed the "just". But personally, I've never used "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" against anything other than trash articles. It doesn't apply to non-article space, IMO. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where does it deny it? The title isn't "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia". It's not just an encyclopedia. The fact we're editing this non-encyclopedia page, and discussing a non-article proves my point. Majorly talk 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Professor Wikipedia
Hey, if anyone is interested, here is a humorous parody of Wikipedia (also, of Encyclopedia Britannica). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Corporate self-editing of Saxo Bank
The article Saxo Bank and its talk page have been self-edited by an IP number from the company, removing critique. I tried to use WikiScanner to find further edits, but WikiScanner's result didn't even yield those edits I already found manually. On the talk page you'll see that a user accuses Saxo Bank of employing computer technicians who, among other things, "go on the internet and make good publicity for Saxo bank". It was also claimed that the early version of the article "reads like an advertisement". I can't say whether the former accusation is true, but at least there is evidence now that the article was edited directly from Saxo Bank. The latter accusation, "like an advertisement", seems to be true about those early versions of the article, of which a substantial part remains. This does not prove, however, that the bank itself deliberately did it. Those edits could come from admirers or happy customers. Corporate self-editing is not acceptable. I think there is very good reason for keeping a close eye on the article! I'll start scrutinising the edit history and I hope somebody will help.--Sasper (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Corporate self-editing, like personal self-editing, isn't an out-and-out no-no but it should always be treated with suspicion, so you're doing the right thing in checking it out. However I don't see a problem with editing the talk page. In fact people who find something wrong with "their" article are recommended to bring it up on the talk page, so that others can decide whether to change the article. I would have thought that it was alright for Saxo to do that too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)