Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 71

WP:ILLEGIT has the following to say:

Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.

• I'd say as long as it's _really_ clear (and perhaps "Nyttend Alt Account" would be a clearer name) it would probably be fine, though I'd suggest it should be avoided when possible. Obviously both accounts should acknowledge each other, and in anything controversial you might want to clarify it's an alt account being used for security in the sig. My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend, that language is bad (and fairly recent). The rule is about creating confusion and duplication by using undisclosed accounts. There should be no problem using both "Nyttend" and "Nyttend backup" editing projectspace as long as you aren't confusing anyone into thinking these are different people. Dragons flight (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think that the primary concern is using both of your accounts in the same vote-oriented process (e.g., RfA). But as to which one to use -- who is to say which is the 'real' account, after all? If the names weren't so obviously similar, you could reduce some confusion by giving identical signatures to all of your accounts (and thus being visibly "Nyttend" in all signed discussions), but I think this unnecessary in this instance. As a more general comment, I also don't see any good reason for saying that editors shouldn't be allowed to edit, e.g., WikiProject pages (which are in the 'project space') or similar pages from alt accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the solution to this would be to use identical signatures, but to append "(public computer)" to the alt account. As long as you're not trying to mislead anyone, and the accounts are linked, and they're not both voting, it should be alright. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Are those policies written by Wikipedia's lawyer(s)? How would one go about having part of one rewritten so its meaning is clear, where it does not appear to be clear at present? WP:LINKVIO is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Scribd_links.3F and it seems like something WP's lawyer(s) should address, not Wikipedians guessing at what the correct legal course of action is. Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Suicide_response_template_needed is something that seems like it should be run by a lawyer too. Шизомби (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Could point them out to [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Mikegodwin Mike Godwin]. Fences&Windows 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::Responses to threats of suicide should be drafted by a lawyer. I like that. ;-) Reminds me of the story of the doctor who stopped by an accident and treated an unconsious person beside it - and was later sued for treating them without their consent. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting forward this new idea to implement targeted flagging on low-watched BLPs. It avoids the complicated proposal of WP:FRPR and does not need massive development delays. Please look and comment on it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

{{lw|Subject specific Notability Guidelines}} has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:This one as well. (Incidentally, if redirecting to category pages, it seems you have to put a colon before "Category:" to stop the redirect showing up in the category.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, since the documentation on {{tl|holdon}} doesn't mention it. Who is allowed to remove the template? I ask since I tagged a hold on to a CSD candidate, and the CSD nominator deleted my hold on after I added it.

70.29.211.9 (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:Are you quite done complaining about every little thing all over the place? It was removed by accident. Chill out and try some good faith or eggnog or something. I'm doing so in not suspecting you are not just some random IP that you keep plastering pointless and silly complaints all over the VPs everywhere.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Reverted 2 edits by 70.29.211.9; Rv; IP doesn't know what he's talking about. using TW does not seem like an accident to me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Primeverse/Archive_1&action=history] I do apologize for making a mistake on the restore of my hang-on though. And why is it silly? Shouldn't there be mention about who is allowed to remove the hold-on? I'd like to know regardless of why you removed it, who is allowed to remove it and when, since it would be informative. I thought I'd ask some third parties on the issue of talk page archival as well. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Its removed by the deciding admin if they decline it. It can also be removed by anyone if it lacks an explanation (i.e. someone just put the tag with nothing with it), or if the page is not actually under CSD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

::::A talk page does not have its own talk page, so it was attached to a {{tl|tmbox}} beneath the {{tl|holdon}}, which you also removed when you reverted my hold-on. It is evident in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Primeverse/Archive_1&oldid=333920137 . So you removed it because you didn't see the tmbox? 70.29.211.9 (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Once the holdon template has been added to a page marked for speedy deletion, there are 2 possible outcomes for the administrator: either he declines deletion and removes both templates, or accepts it and delete the page if the original rationale was correct (as pointed by the template itself, "holdon" is not binding, and doesn't prevent from deletion an otherwise clear SD page). I hardly see a reason to remove just the holdon template and keep the other: all possible circumstances for it (like no explanation, unacceptable explanation, etc.) are up to the admin to check. Even more, the user who placed a speedy deletion template to a page should never remove a holdon template added to it: it may be conceived as some kind of edit warring in order to get a page deleted by concealing to the admin the disagreement about the deletion MBelgrano (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:MBelgrano, perhaps you can answer this since I havent had an article of mine put up for deletion in two years and so am not well versed in the matter- a speedy deletion is for deletions that are uncontested if I understand correctly, wouldnt a holdon template mean that it is now contested and should go to AfD instead of the Admin making a unilateral decision? Wouldnt that be the best way to settle a dispute instead of one Admin making the decision based solely on two individuals explanations (or lack thereof).Camelbinky (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

::Actually, if a page can be speedily deleted or not is determined by fitting or not the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The choice is of a "black & white" kind, if an article falls in the "shades of grey", then there's no speedy deletion. There may be deletion anyway, but with other non-speedy process. Chech A7 for example. A speedy deletion isn't denied simply if the creator opposes, but if he opposes with a credible reason. This isn't about hand-raising, have in mind that, except for tests, no deletion is truly uncontested: for each page in wikipedia there's at least one user (the creator) that thinks that such page should exist. MBelgrano (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I didnt think about it that way. Thank you, that was very informative. I like learning new things. Very interesting.Camelbinky (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls is already on record as being one of the lamest edit wars of all time, and I as a participant have to agree to that. However, there is now a question which I think might deserve some attention and possible policy or guideline clarfication. The idea is proposed at Talk:Hogenakkal Falls#Possible need for a consensus on a general policy that we have some sort of explicit guideline or policy regarding what to do with alternate names in other scripts which themselves have some degree of notability. Particularly for areas which have had several different types of scripts dominate, or in areas where multiple scripts are in use today to varying degrees, I think that it would make sense to have some sort of guideline or policy regarding how to deal with such matters. Unfortunately, I haven't got a clue which if any extant policy or guideline would be the best place to propose such a matter. Any opinions, on either the porposed guideline/policy or which extant one would be the best place to propose such a change? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:In my opinion, as one of the members of the aforementioned lame-men club, it would be a very tricky situation. In all honesty, what extra information does writing the same place name in different languages impart? For the example quoted (Hogenakkal falls), it is still Hogenakkal in both Tamil and Kannada although the word for falls might vary. It would be informative only if it gives a pronunciation guide rather than just the script - which most might not be able to read. As for the ones who can read the script, there are links to those languages Wikipedia to read further. Having said that please let me not be misinterpreted that am implying that alternative language scripts have no use, but rather my point is "I’m not aware of any of such rationale".

:In case those scripts being there do have a purpose - is it the language of jurisdiction or the language which contributes to the etymology of the name needs to be spelt out? If there is going to be a uniform rule covering all articles, are we leading to another type of edit war where people can fight over the etymologies. Moreover, what do we do for countries like Indonesia where the name is derived from two languages (Greek and Latin). As for Hogenakkal falls article, I would say that both scripts staying there doesn’t harm anyone (at least would help avoid a bit of edit wars). But to use that as a global norm will only lead to complications. And now that’s my POV. :D Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 09:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

::Local location names in local scripts should be included, as per Japan.

::If people can't agree on where to have it in the lede, move the details to the etymology section, per Wikipedia:Lead section#Alternative names.

::Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Waterfalls#Article Structure (and ask at its talk) for further info. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

:As we do for any person whose name may be in his/her's native language in addition to English we can have the article's name in the ledge in both English ( for the universal info / as this is wiki en ) & the local name Tamil should be more than enough . If people want to try other language's like Hindi & Kannada then i too want New Delhi ( cuz we have the parliament there which is common to all the official languages of the nation ) & Bangalore ( cuz we have a sizeable amount of tamil's living there ) in Tamil . Kindly understand that i'am not biased but trying to say that the universal law must be applied or let the universal law change if it goes here alone .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

::I should clarify that I was thinking in this particular case of locations which are, effectively in either political or linguistic border regions where more than one local script may be in current use. Obviously, Indian names are the ones which prompted this discussion, but I rather doubt they are the only ones facing this question to some degree or other. I do think having some sort of clarity as to how to deal with such situations might be useful for potentially several articles. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I think Japan is a good example where it makes sense to have native script in the article. The country is not called Japan in Japan, but Nippon (if am right). If we apply that to Tamil place names, it would make sense for places likeJaffna and Batticaloa which are known in Tamil as Yazhpanam and Mattakalappu. These places are always writen in the "alternate" name in the local language (Tamil) in these regions. Whereas, for cases like Hogenakkal it is still Hogenakkal in Tamil (the official language of the region) or Kannada (the root language of the name). The script give no information what so ever as far as I can see. As I said earlier, I might be completely wrong. Nevertheless, I would like to know why am I wrong. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Probably it is a good idea to have a global norm on this issue, but the norm cannot be merely on what alternate sits on the article and what doesn't, but should start from the first question "does the article need alternate scripts in the first place". First let us make sure we understand that alternate names /= alternate script. May be breaking down the issue into smaller questions will help deciding on the "alternate name/script" issue. I have used examples mostly from South Asia.

::::Q1. Does the place in question have English language alternate names (as used by the English media)?

:::::Example 1: Varanasi is also known as Benares. Both the names mentioned in the article lead.

:::::Example 2: Bangalore was recently christened officially as Bengaluru. This makes the latter an English name as well. But the name Bangalore is still predominantly used in the media. This is an alternate name in English and hence the article on Bangalore says also known as Bengaluru. This is in contrast to Chennai which was earlier called as Madras in English. Although some English media (including the BBC) uses Madras to refer to this city, Chennai is more commonly used. Both names are mentioned in the lead.

::::Q2. Is the place in question known by a different name locally?

:::::Example 3: Batticalao is locally referred to as Mattakalappu in Tamil. Although Mattakalappu is not an English name, it is the name used by the locals and thus deserves to be added to the lead. Since is it not an English language name it also needs to be mentioned in the native script.

::::Q3. Is the alternate name non-local and non-English?

:::::Example 4: India is referred to as Kaek in Thai. So Kaek can be India’s alternate name. But since it is non-local and non-English, it really doesn’t need to be added to the article.

::::In simpler words, the alternate script would make sense only when accompanied by alternate names. And the alternate names make sense only when it is English/local language. Place name etymology should sit in the right section where it needs to be. If the local name and the English name are the same, there is no need of alternate scripts. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

• I'm not sure that this requires a change in policy, more like using common sense. The name Hogenekkal is of Kannada origin, the place is on a linguistic border, use common sense and have both. Now, the article of course appears to have an interesting history with quite a bit of nonsensical edits, but this one appears logical, it's not an alternate name, it's just addition of the name in the script of etymological origin/language with a sizable population locally. And on the other front, why is the Tamil script required in the caption for the infobox image? -SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:I'm fine with having both. But the question is, what extra information does the alternate scripts give to English language Encyclopedia? For a person who can't read Tamil or Kannada, it wouldn't make any sense of those scripts being there. And for those who can, there is a link in the right to read the langauges. As I said, it is very likely that am missing the point. But can you or anyone please explain me the common sense of why we have other language scripts if they are pronounced the same as the English language name. Sorry am not trying to be a pain. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::If we go with "there's no point in having other scripts", I'm completely fine, but that's not our policy, we have regional scripts for the name in most articles. However, in this particular case we have one script based on the geographic territory but not the one which the name is derived from. Common sense dictates that the script for the language the name is derived from should be included (as is Sanskrit text and IAST for many Sanskrit derived words in different articles). Having only the geographic territory script, but not the etymological roots script is not neutral, it should be either both or nothing, and we don't need to modify policy to address such anomalies. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 21:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I can't agree more with you about having both in case we are to have the scripts. This issue with scripts doesn't stop with Hogenakkal falls article. FYI, when it comes to issue like this I would rather be an inclusionist. Although small the time I spend in Wikipedia, I have come across other editwars in articles on Rajinikanth and Periyar E. V. Ramasamy on the same issue of adding other langauge scripts. Once again the languages were Tamil and Kannada (here, here and here). At that point I did not know about Village pump and hence tried to start a discussion here. Later CarTick (Docku at that time) brought up the same issue on the worth of having other language scripts. I think John Carter is trying to get this sorted for good (sorry John if am putting my words into your mouth). All the drivel I have written here is to make the point that Hogennakkal entry is not a sore thumb, but to the contrary the issue had been going on - although subtle - for a long time now. Its better sorted to avoid anymore edit wars. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::::In most cases, these script wars generally tend to be irrelevant. While I don't agree with the solution arrived at on Rajinikanth, it's harmless. The same thing happened on R. K. Narayan where birthplace and scripts were constantly changed, but a talk page discussion ended it, in his case it was pretty straightforward, he was Tamilian, his contributions were in English and a wee bit in Tamil, so the fact that he lived in Karnataka for half his life shouldn't affect scripts. Either ways, I think these discussions are best solved on the talk page, increasing policy lines will just complicate things further. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::I suppose extending this topic to every articles talk page would only add vandalism & heated debates which was happening for ages , when there is an article [http://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B2%B9%E0%B3%8A%E0%B2%97%E0%B3%86%E0%B2%A8%E0%B2%95%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D_%E0%B2%9C%E0%B2%B2%E0%B2%AA%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%A4 in kannada] i fail to see a reason to why we have to add the name's in other language's , when a Russian article is given a [Tamil]] translation then we may add Russian & English to it which is fair cuz the article is a translated stuff but this article is a tamilnadu based one & hence addng the alternative languages may not be necessary .Then why dont we extend the topic to bangalore ( with a sizable tamil population)?? --Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 10:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::You're still missing the point, the name is a Kannada name. -SpacemanSpiff 06:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:not the fullname ...but only a part of it , "kal" is the same in both the languages ...ok then Madras was a Portuguese origin did we have the portuguese translation in the title ?? , trying like this would be fair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Asian_cities_in_different_languages] but anything more would invite nothing but edit fight which has happened since ages in this particular article . ok then what major difference would it bring ??--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

::Well, not to make an argument out of this, but FYI Kannagi was from Chera land from her own words and that part of the world is now officially Kerala. So do we have Malayalam in Illango and Kannagi's pages? Just a thought there. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

{{tlx|rfctag|policy}}

An ongoing RFC: click on the last link below to give us your take on this week's selected content policy, and a summary of all the comments will appear in the Policy Report in next week's Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. All responses are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Week of Dec 21-28: WT:Biographies of living persons#Signpost Policy Report
• Week of Dec 28 - Jan 4: WT:Naming conventions#Signpost Policy Report

On 18:08, 6 December 2009, on Wikipedia talk:No original research I suggested that WP:PSTS should be a separate guideline, rather than a section of WP:NOR. This got some approval on the talk page, including at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Renewing the call to move PSTS, so I have created a draft page at User:Yaris678/PSTS. Take a look! I'd like to know what people think. Yaris678 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:As the author of "Renewing the call" thread pointed to above... I obviously approve of this proposed move. Having WP:PSTS as part of the NOR policy has repeatedly resulted in editors mistakenly concluding that citation to Primary (or Tertiary) sources is in some way "not allowed"... that material cited to anything but a Secondary source is automaticlally OR... when that is not the case. Furthermore, moving the section to its own policy or guideline page will allow us to expand into other areas that impact or are impacted by source typing. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

::WP:PSTS should stay in WP:NOR, as it derives solely and directly from WP:NOR, and is extremely important to building articles. However, it could be abbreviated and linked to a guideline, "Wikipedia:Interpreting WP:PSTS". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I said something similar on the NOR talk page, linked to above. I certainly wouldn't object to also creating a separate guideline, though. I wouldn't use a name utilizing abbreviations though. I would recommend something like Wikipedia:Classifying sources.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I think in practice there isn't much difference between my proposal and SmokeyJoe's. I haven't explicitly stated this before but I will now: Under my proposal WP:NOR would still mention primary, secondary and tertiary sources briefly. It would also link to the new page on the subject. Yaris678 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Adding a {{tl|Main}} link to the current section on NOR would almost be mandatory. I don't think that the current section within NOR ought to be summarized or shortened at all though, as it's a central component towards understanding the NOR concept.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ω, I disagree with you there. For example, there wouldn't be much point in defining primary, secondary and tertiary sources in WP:NOR when anyone who is unsure could go to the new page. Yaris678 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:If you read the whole NOR document then the section on PST sources fits in directly with the other content. As a matter of fact, that section should probably be indented one more level to become a sub-section of the "Using sources" section (or somehow better integrated into that sub-section). It's inclusion in it's present form is vital to understanding the whole document. That being said, a separate document specifically about Using/Classifying/Interpreting sources for use on Wikipedia is easily supportable, and should probably include much more detailed information which pulls together components of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable Sources. All three are closely related when it comes to sources.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

just saying thanks and stuff,wikipedia`s policy of secondary source listing makes it really easy for me to research state law statutes.....And other important stuff

Also i dont see why people complain about the notability requirement,if they want to see that info so bad,why dont they make there own website or something,freewebs is pretty easy to use....Anyways,thanks for the informative info wikipedia community ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.10.54 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:Because some people think Wikipedia is the Internet :) Anyways, you're welcome. –MuZemike 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I found an image online, that I'd like to use in an article. It's a pre-1900 photo of a US subject. That makes it public domain. I found it at a US university's historical society website, and the image is stamped with their name. What's the protocol? Do I ask them for an unstamped version? Do I use this one until then? Do I Photoshop out their name? -Freekee (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:Have you tried finding the same image on a different website, one that might not have their logo stamped on it? Which is pretty dickish of the university to do. If its something like a postcard alot of times you can find those on eBay because someone is selling it, I've found alot of images that way. The photo may be in archives of the Library of Congress (a link to the LOC and how to use their images is at this wikiproject). Sorry cant answer your question though.Camelbinky (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for the tip. I've added the site to my bookmarks. It didn't help me out this time, though. -Freekee (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Feel free to Photoshop out their name, if you can. If it's truly public domain, then they have no claim to it notwithstanding that they hosted it on their website or that they may own the physical photographic print in their archive. But credit their website as the source of the image. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

::::You can still upload it with the stamp (providing that it is just in the corner or something smaller) to see if one of us can photoshop it out. I was going to suggest tagging it with {{tlx|watermark}}, but it is nothing like Commons' version. Killiondude (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::I ended up cropping the stamp out. I still acknowledged that I got the image from them, in the image description page. I kinda wondered if we didn't want to annoy them by cropping that out, if we wanted to get images from them later on. Or something. Thanks! -Freekee (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

{{cot|The allegations were addressed at the appropriate noticeboard. Participants in discussions on Wikipedia are reminded not to engage in personal attacks}}

Allegations of impropriety made against William M. Connolley by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post and then repeated uncritically by James Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph were addressed in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=333800661#User:William_M._Connolley_and_Global_Warming this discussion] at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

----

I was shocked to recently see [http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2361926 this] news report about purported large scale POV pushing by Climate change scientists. It sounds really fantastic and ominous to me, an (relatively) uninformed editor.

I could not find any reference to this issue on Wikipedia. Can anyone give me a reasonably NPOV perspective on the matter? Or a pointer to the discussion?

In case this is a tiresome repeat of a much flogged dead horse, please pardon me! AshLin (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:This surprises you? hmmm... start with User talk:William_M._Connolley and skim through some of the talk page posts, administrative acts, and contributions - then decide for yourself. Connolley is not someone I've run across myself (not in any way that I remember, at any rate), but from a glance at his talk page he runs with a well-known crowd of aggressively pro-science editors. They would say they are saving wikipedia from the clutches of the scientifically illiterate masses; others - myself included - would phrase it differently. The article you linked strikes me as hyperbolic, and seems to lack a proper understanding of how wikipedia editing works, but it does not strike me as wholly inaccurate. hope that helps. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:Well, that 'article' post is a pretty good example of why blogs aren't considered reliable sources — especially not for the purposes of a living person's biography. As you say, the story is indeed 'fantastic'. (The National Post, in which the blog first appeared, is Canada's print equivalent to the United States' Fox News.) Lawrence Solomon, the blog author, has his own particular axes to grind. Why he has chosen William Connolley to pick on is not entirely clear; perhaps it is because Connolley is one of Wikipedia's more dedicated, effective, and qualified editors of climate change articles.

:Unfortunately, the hysterical numbers in Solomon's blog are demonstrably false. I won't rehash the numbers yet again, but Talk:William Connolley#Solomon op-ed and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:William M. Connolley and Global Warming have both already examined (and dismissed) the blog's claims. Solomon didn't do his homework, and his lack of fact-checking borders on libel. In the future, please consider checking the talk page of the subject's article first, before posting an inflammatory, defamatory link like this on the Village Pump.

:As an aside, I'm a bit taken aback that 'aggressively pro-science' is actually considered a derogatory term in this day and age. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

::I don't want to pursue that last here, except to say that "aggressively pro-anything" constitutes a bias that needs to be taken into consideration. personally, I am aggressively pro-peach_cobbler, which means I would have to put in extra effort to be circumspect if I started editing apple pie. I like science; in fact, I probably know more about science in general than the vast majority of wikipedians (including a good number of pro-science editors). But science is a tool, and like any tool it should be used prudently and then set down when done - otherwise you risk damaging the tool.

::If you'd like to discuss the issue more, please see me on my talk page (or someplace else). the debate is too gnarly to continue on the pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

:::Thanks for the responses. The links indicated by responders have brought the issue into perspective. I did not mean to inflame any emotions by bringing up the subject. I normally don't frequent the Village Pump. Being located in India, I also don't read what may be 'normal' journalistic resources that my fellow editors from USA may read. The Village Pump seemed to be the right place to ask about what seemed to be a blatant and major attack on the Wikipedia editor community. My thanks once again. AshLin (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Ludwigs2, I'm also a bit disappointed that you (an experienced Wikipedia editor) decided to denigrate Connolley and (partly) endorse the Solomon blog before doing your homework — whether you agree with his pro-science perspective or not. (And how do we take a 'neutral' point of view on scientific issues? Unlike the peach cobbler question, I can't see the value of giving equal credit to pro-scientific and anti-scientific viewpoints on science issues — including climate change.) Please don't import your biases and conflicts to the Pump. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

::::TenOfAllTrades: I hardly think that what I said was anything close to 'denigrating'. The OP asked for a reasonably NPOV perspective on the matter, and I did my best to offer one. I'm sorry if you don't see that, and happy to clarify anything that might have offended you.

::::With respect to your parenthetical point, we take a neutral point of view on scientific issues by remembering that science doesn't lay claim to truth. Science crafts theories to conform to observable evidence and produce pragmatic results, so the most it can say about any given theory - no matter how bad that theory is - is that the theory doesn't account for evidence and can't be used for anything practical. A lot of science editors (and some scientists) want to go the extra mile and attack bad theories as dumb or unscientific, even to the point of trying to exclude or 'denigrate' them or the people who present them. I understand that urge, since I feel it frequently myself, but it is a counter-productive move that ultimately reduces the credibility of science and leaves scientific investigation as a whole open to counter-charges that science is merely a political endeavor. That is not NPOV, and it is not wise. The climate change issue is no exception, and I am reasonably sure that Mr. Connolley (with the best intentions, of course) has had a hand in excluding or repressing some number of those "antiscientific" theories from multiple pages, and the result is exactly what you see: hyperbolic and somewhat paranoid claims about censorship and impropriety, which (true or not) reflect badly on him, on Wikipedia, and on the science of global warming as a whole. see my point? --Ludwigs2 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

{{cob}}

I'm really not sure how this should be handled, so I'll just post this here and see what happens...

If anyone has a chance, please look at Talk:International Space Station#British English?. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Should AWB be used to remove wholesale words listed in WP:Words to avoid? The specific case here is the use of AWB to remove every instance of "untimely" preceding "death". While "untimely" does have POV connotations which has earned it a place in the words to avoid list, it does alter the meaning of the statement to remove it. The revised statements no longer communicate that the death was premature. Related discussion here and here. Gigs (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:IMO yes, but the last occasion something similar was tried under AWB, to my knowledge, led to this discussion and the parking of the issue as an unfulfilled feature request. So good luck with it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for the discussion link. As luck would have it, the same user recently did a mass change with AWB to change all instances of "passed away" to "died", so I guess history really is repeating itself. Gigs (talk)

:::That is what AWB is for. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::::As long as care is taken to not replace it when used in quotes, I see no problem with this. Fram (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← Please note that the "AWB" part of this discussion is irrelevant. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested that this be included in AWB's typo fixes or general fixes, or that an AWB bot be set loose to do it. AWB is just a tool which helps to perform tasks faster, easier, and more accurately. Similarly, the discussion linked to above is not relevant to this issue, as it was about changing "passed away" to "died" as an AWB typo fix. AWB does not currently do that, and I wholeheartedly agree that it should not.

As for the real question of whether the edits should be made, rather than repeat myself, please see {{diff2|333432886|my comments}}. Short version: yes, with care.

Also, please note that characterizing me as removing "every instance" of "untimely" and changing "all instances" of "passed away" is not true. I only make the change when it's appropriate. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:I don't doubt your good intentions. The AWB part is not irrelevant; AWB is only supposed to be used for non-controversial changes that don't change the meaning of text. What you have been doing is both of those. You are right in that the earlier discussion was slightly different, but the discussion isn't irrelevant, the same concerns apply. There is no way that you can judge the context of these when you are doing 6 of them per minute. 10 seconds is not enough time for you to decide whether the passage is losing meaning by the removal of words. If you were doing these slowly and replacing "untimely" with "young" or "early" when it's more appropriate, or something else that, then we wouldn't be here. Gigs (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::I don't think untimely always means young or early or even unnatural or unexpected. Besides which, young is incapable of being defined in this context. Untimely is always pov and unencyclopedic unless it is part of a title or quotation. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia: the only encyclopedia in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year. A systematic quest to erase the existence of certain words in the encyclopedia is very different than simply having a style guide discouraging their use. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Bad idea in almost every respect. AWB is only tolerable because most of its edits are non-controversial (e.g. a blank space before a comma). The idea of having the Usage and Style Police (USPol) patrolling articles in general for perceived lapses in style, taste or judgement is abhorrent. That's very different from keeping an eye out for profanities, obscenities or racial epithets that are a strong indicator of malicious vandalism. Let the editors decide, and if someone's who's reading the article for some other reason dislikes some euphemism, let it be hashed out on the Talk Page. If there be an Almighty, then perhaps all deaths are untimely, or all are timely, or some are timely and others untimely. And a death can be untimely for a group of people that the decedent has affected, or even for the decedent himself or herself, e.g. just at the point of finishing a masterwork or reconciling with an estranged loved one or leaving prison after exoneration from someone else's crime.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakescene (talk • contribs) 05:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::Agree: A bot should never, ever be changing "content", as in the actual text or wording of anything. Never. Period. Just because things are words to avoid doesn't means they're words that should be essentially enforced by oversight. The words are occasionally appropriate in some contexts, or used in normal conversation, as well. I'd revert any and all edits I ever saw performed on my edits in this way. This would most certainly never get wider community acceptance, either, given there have been several recent incidents of SmackBot operators sneaking in a change in reference formatting in articles and the bot being shut off immediately after discovery. General consensus was that even that is far too much involvement of a bot into the actual text or code of an article. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Datheisen, to be clear, we aren't talking about a fully automated bot, we are talking about semi-automated AWB-assisted edits. IMO many of the same concerns apply, but I wanted to point that out so that no one is confused. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::Gigs is breaching WP:CANVASS. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I notified the previous participants in related conversations in a neutral way. The discussion here had stalled so I solicited input from a few editors who had interest in the topic. This is not improper canvassing. Gigs (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::It seemed to me (on almost no information) to be a neutral notification. I don't think that I or Baseball Bugs was notified in the expectation that I or he would necessarily agree with the proposal, which we don't. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::No, I don't think any pattern should be set for the unthinking removal of "untimely" as in "untimely death." I don't approve of the phrase, but it is always possible that an instance can arise in which that phrase is perfect. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::I concur with that. Using any sort of automated or semi-automated process to remove particular words is to open a can of worms. It should remain up to editorial judgment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::As I've been invited to comment here: Removing such terms in a fully automated way (with bots or the "typo fixes" list) should be an absolute no-no, I think we can agree on that. I'm not so sure about semi-automated removal. In the end, everyone is responsible for the edits that he/she is making, whether AWB was used or not. Care must be taken not to make any mistakes either way. --Conti|✉ 15:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to have a bot look for this pattern and then record all articles where this happens (on a user subpage?). Then a real person can manually look through and fix it where necessary. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:I dislike even that approach. It's not the kind of thing that should be trawled for blindly. If someone actually reads the article and comes across a jarring, clumsy or inappropriate phrase that doesn't fit the context, he or she can edit it with the backing of a previous consensus on Words to Avoid. Other editors can explain why they disagree with that point of view, or what makes a particular death untimely. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bots are supremely able to take reasonable prose and make it unreadable. When it comes to choosing precise words, I suggest a human is superior to any bot with an automatic response to seeing a particular set of letters. Collect (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments against the use of bots or tools like AWB to alter language in a way other than fixing obvious typos. Individualized editorial judgment is always a must for phrasing choices rather than drive-by mass editing.

On the issue of "untimely" as a word choice, there may be better ways to express it, but what it most clearly communicates to me is that the death was substantially before the life expectancy for that individual's demographic at that time in history. So if used in that sense it isn't subjective. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:In which case it would need to be supported by a WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

::We don't require sources for every statement on Wikipedia, only "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged..." (per WP:V) and I think it's pretty clear that this policy envisions challenges being issued by a human editor, not a bot. --agr (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to use semi-automated processes to remove words listed in WP:Words to avoid or any similar value-judgement editing. I'd like to see bots/AWB/scripts limited to specified and approved tasks that editors have agreed are completely non-controversial, (and when necessary thoroughly discussed, as for example the current date delinking bot runs.) --Kleinzach 00:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon review, I believe that in this instance insufficient care was taken to ensure that the meaning of the article was not degraded. I suspect that the fact that AWB was being used encouraged Mandarax to act carelessly in this project. This word is not empty of meaning and if it is to be removed, the surrounding context will usually need to be changed to ensure that the meaning nevertheless comes through. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:I have never edited carelessly, with or without AWB. I am responsible for all of my edits, and I do not make edits with AWB which I would not have made otherwise. I inspect every edit before saving. Whenever I felt that there was a chance that removing the word would alter the meaning, or would not improve the article, or would in any other way be inappropriate, I left it.

:Christopher Parham wrote: "...if it is to be removed, the surrounding context will usually need to be changed to ensure that the meaning nevertheless comes through." The whole point is that there is no meaning without surrounding context. If there already is surrounding context to give meaning to the word, then the word is superfluous, and if the proper context is not present, then the imprecise and emotional word has no clear meaning. Was the death untimely because the person was young? (How young must one be for their death to be considered untimely? Are the deaths of people older than the cutoff point "timely"?) Or was the person on the verge of doing something important when they died? Or did the writer feel that the death was untimely merely because the person was famous? Or was there some other "untimely" criterion? Who knows? In many instances, it appeared to be used in the most emotional and, in my opinion, incorrect, way: as a quasi-synonym for "sad", to describe the death of someone whom others cared about deeply, in which case almost any death at any age under any circumstances might be considered "untimely". The word is, at best, merely an emotional way of repeating what should already be explained elsewhere with relevant facts from reliable sources. These are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not eulogies.

:I haven't made any of these changes since I was first informed that someone had concerns, and after all of this dreary discussion, I don't intend to do any ever again. While I still feel that these changes are correct, I don't use AWB to make potentially controversial edits. Carefully removing the word where it added nothing to the article certainly seemed uncontroversial to me, especially as it was listed at WP:Words to avoid. Note that at the top of that page, it says: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." Any reasonable person can thus assume that words listed there have already been discussed and have been listed there to reflect consensus. I followed the advise there, and used common sense, letting the word stand when it seemed appropriate. A previous discussion also showed a clear consensus that it was, indeed, a word to avoid. Anyways, I don't really have any strong feelings about this. I guess it doesn't hurt to have the occasional meaningless word in an article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::Heya Mandarax. I haven't actually looked at the edits in question (which is why I haven't replied here prior to this), and I know exactly what you mean about taking responsibility for your edits (People seem to jump at any chance to criticize AWB, probably because it's easy to do so).

::I did want to comment about the language issue which is part of what is underlying this though. It seems that you're making what is essentially a minimalist argument regarding the use of the English language, above ("If there already is surrounding context to give meaning to the word, then the word is superfluous..."). to be succinct about it, I'd just like to mention that not everyone agrees with this philosophy. The point being, this is a style issue. I think that plays a part in people complaining about your use of AWB here, since the one thing that automation does well with language is to kill style, when it comes to writing. My take is this: you're as free as anyone else to change style, within certain bounds, but you need to be sensitive enough to the issues around such editing not to use automated tools for assistance. It doesn't matter that you're responsible with said tools usage, but the fact that you're using tools opens you to criticism. This sort of thing is essentially a political issue.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 08:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your comments. The problem is that there almost never was any surrounding context to support the use of the word and give it meaning. The reader is left to wonder what the writer had in mind. Personally, this reader felt that, more often than not, the writer was either using "untimely" as I mentioned above, as a quasi-synonym for "sad", or was just familiar with the term "untimely death" and liked the sound of it and how "untimely" seemed to soften the word "death". The reader can check the age at death, and wonder if the writer might have been expressing their point of view that the death was untimely because of that. But it would only be a guess, and even if this is what the writer intended, readers should be free to form their own opinions about the timeliness or untimeliness of death, based on their own experience and religious and philosophical beliefs. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I believe you, when it comes to the actual use of the phrase and context. The specific phraseology itself isn't so much as issue for me here as pointing out the "political" issue itself. The one thing that I've noticed about Wikipedia is that it's really easy for us to be dragged into disputes over issues that are relatively tangential to the actual content, if you see what I mean (I hope that makes sense...). It's the fact that you were using an automated tool (AWB) to make the edits, and that you were systematically editing to persue a "stylistic" goal, which seems to have created the issue here. The validity of the edits themselves tend to become lost in these sorts of discussions. I understand completely how that can be (very) frustrating, but that's the reality which we are all faced with.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I added an update to the list of commercial CD recordings of

organ works of the composer Dietrich Buxtehude - and that was done successfully.

However when I now pause the mouse over the name of the artist whose

CD recordings I added, Bernard Foccroulle, a bubble tells me there is no entry

for that person. While it is true for the English version of Wikipedia it

is worth noting that there is an entry in the French version of Wikipedia.

Is it not possible to re-configure Wikipedia to direct users to an

entry that already exists in a different language version? Many

people are multi-lingual and I think this would, in general, be a good

improvement to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.54.224 (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:You can do this through interwiki linking, though generally speaking (for a number of reasons) it's better to create a page in the same language. Read Help:Interwiki linking. generally you would do something of this form :fr:Bernard Foccroulle, which gives this: :fr:Bernard Foccroulle. You might also want to add a bit of text to warn that the user is about to click into a different language. --Ludwigs2 05:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

::There's no need to modify the software: simply create the article (a stub may be enough), give it the interwikis, and place the {{tl|Expand language}} pointing the developed article in the talk page. MBelgrano (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:::ah... one of those well-presented ideas I wish I'd thought of myself. {{=)}} --Ludwigs2 14:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any parallel template for populate category from language? For example, there's only one article in :Category:Sicilian_musical_groups, but 30 in the Sicilian version. I've temporarily used the {{tl|Expand language}} tag for Sicilian, but that really seems more for articles than populating categories. Suggestions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we discuss certain edits before they are reverted, so everyone can come up to an agreement as too many edits are being restored after being reverted. This would be good policy to follow and keep vandalism to a minimum. Paul2387 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

:Which edits? Examples? Fences&Windows 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

::I asked Paul to reinstate this discussion after he removed it due to (I believe) thinking this is not the place for it. He did have particulars listed per Fences question; however I do think they arent needed as we can discuss the general question of- if an edit is reverted and then restored when is a good time to discuss it; ie- do you bring the discussion immediately to the talk page when reverting to give a headsup, do you bring it only when you restore, or do you bring it after its been restored and the original reverter wants to revert it again?Camelbinky (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I totally agree with Carmel as that was what was being highlighted in my question above regarding discussing reversion/restoration on the related talk page. Paul2387 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:::The question seems too general for there to be a definite answer, imo. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::::This is the village pump, not the OR/N or RS/N or AN/I where definitive answers are looked for. The Village Pump's purpose is for people to discuss their opinions and see what the pulse of the Community is. There isnt a question to be answered; nor does there need to be or should be. The Village Pump is about getting ideas out there and making people think and putting everyone's thoughts together into a consensus that can be used in the future, whether codified as policy or guideline or not.Camelbinky (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::The question is too vague, it needs clarification to be a useful debate. What kind of edits are we talking about: unsourced; poorly sourced; disputed sourcing; poorly worded; non-neutral; potentially libellous; gibberish? What is the actual problem that needs solving here? Fences&Windows 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent). I don't think this is a good idea because it puts the responsibility for discussion solely with the reverting editor (also in the case of vandalism). It could as well be decided that change must be discussed first before they are made (putting the responsibility completely with the editor proposing this change).

Both options are some kind of "talk first - edit later" solution; that require a lot of effort from the editor having to do the talk. In my experience in over 90% of the edits (and reverts) there is no objection, so such a labour intensive necessity seems over the top.

Of course this leaves the edits that are made, reverted and then in the end are restored. In my view we do have a way to deal with this the bold,revert,discuss WP:BRD cycle, where an editor can make an edit with (or without) talk page discussion (but preferably with edit summary) another editor reverts (again without mandatory talk but preferably with edit summary). In the cases this does not lead to agreement, the next step would be to start discussion, by the editor originally proposing the change of the standing(=previous consensus) article version. (In my experience there is one problem with this, that either reverting or adding editor feels personally offended by the other's approach. But I don't think any change would help that.)

The Bold-revert-discuss cycles creates a little bit more work for those edits that are finally restored, but it saves a lot of work for all other cases. Therefore I would not be in favour of adding early talk obligations, not even to special cases, as this would make rules more complex and editors more likely to make mistakes in identifying which edits would require talk before reverting and which can be reverted without. Leaving vandalism up maybe one of the results. Arnoutf (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If we could watch not just whole topics but specific contributions, I could have found the vandalism to my talk-page posts months ago. (Talk posts may be answered but the posts themselves shouldn't be edited by other than original posters.) I restored my original posts and the IP for the vandal shows up anywhere on Wikipedia only for one day, and the other vandalism was taken out by someone else. But it's still a problem in general and this can help.

Technically, the hook can include the page-comparison diff method.

The downside is whether someone who does bad content and scrams will thus learn of a change they otherwise wouldn't have cared enough about to visit to see, and will make more bad work.

If most people are good about these things, then the downside will be far outweighed by the upside, because careful writers will respond to bad changes and leave good additional contributions intact.

Only links should be provided and not full article texts, so users will visit pages, and watch pages will be shorter.

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:Do you mean that you want to be able to watch article sections or talk page sections, rather than whole articles? mw:LiquidThreads might change how we watch talk pages. Fences&Windows 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::At present there is no way to watch specific sections of a page (see WP:Perennial proposals; you're far from the first one to think of it). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not offer email for watched topics for a fee or for advertising exposure?

For free, people can log in at will.

You can use the revenue.

Email provides a convenience.

Advertising may influence editorial content, but Google and Yahoo have shown the viability of independence of editorial from commercial, and Wikipedia can do likewise. And Wikipedia itself can still be ad-free.

I speak as one who might not qualify to pay for it if you require payment to be online. It's still a good idea.

Thanks.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:What do you mean, a watchlist update delivered by email, say daily? I can't see why anyone would pay for it if it was developed. How does this involve advertising? Within the email alert? Fences&Windows 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::No. This would be, inevitably, a Foundation issue, not a Wikipedia one. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::We already offer the ability to syndicate an RSS feed of your watchlist, which is much more flexible - see Wikipedia:Syndication. Even if we didn't offer this, it's unlikely that we could make money off an email feed, and just as unlikely that we would attempt to do so. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::One of the few times I will speak in absolutes is now. This idea is logistically not doable - period. Because content at WP is under various licenses like the CC-BY-SA/GFDL there would be nothing to legally prevent any person from (a) redistributing a watchlist under the same license, (b) creating their own watchlist by means of a simple (slow) bot or screen scraper. There is no content at WP that can be directly monetized because the content is freely available under these licenses. Low Sea (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Low Sea (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here I am - and after a long relationship with this site, I've finally had enough of Wikipedia and its archaic, insanely immature collection of vindictive and non-scholarly crowd-following "editors" who do anything and everything to turn this potential wealth of genuinely useful information into nothing more than a trough of complete bollocks. No more can I deal with various editors (see 9/11 discussion for example) who seem set on arse-licking their own Government ("No sources? Oh that's right! It's fine! It's the American Authorities! Of course they won't lie to the public! Shurely?!") and being straight-out rude to those, any offence largely unintentional, who are far more schooled in particular areas of study than the trigger-happy 12-year-old editors who seem to be putting this website to shame these days.

I've had enough.

Goodbye. 80.229.192.163 (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:Ah yes, the old "I'm smarter than you, but I can't prove it, so bye bye because I'm better than you" argument. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

::I believe I remember an episode where Perry Mason won a case with that argument...Camelbinky (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Of course judges and juries are too smart to be fooled by antics like that these days. Now much cleverer techniques have been developed, like the Chewbacca defense. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:Someone using the phrase "arse-licking their own Government" after having just admonished everyone else for their immaturity makes me giggle. EVula // talk // ☯ // 12:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

::And nothing of value was lost. Boy, the world sure seems to have a short fuse when you annoy the piss out of everyone with your attitude. --King Öomie 15:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:well, I personally think it's sad. for an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", we sure do manage to drive off a whole lot of anyones. but c'est la vie... --Ludwigs2 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

::There are certainly cases where we drive off potentially valuable contributors, and I'm chagrined by those as well. On the other hand, it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but whether people will enjoy and want to continue editing when they realize the demands imposed by a collaborative, anti-authoritarian, (excessively) egalitarian environment is a different question. Reading between the lines of the original post, I'm inferring that the author desired a more positive presentation of certain minoritarian views of the 9/11 attacks. That advocates of such viewpoints find Wikipedia uncongenial is not necessarily a failing of this website, but more a function of its aspiration to be a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:::yeah, I agree. I'm just hankering after a perfect world (as usual...). {{=)|blush}} --Ludwigs2 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I think those anyones don't want to keep up with the debate. They really just want their 2 cents out there, not that it is substantiated or anything. While I must agree that the us gov't would lie, I do feel the conspiricists are more manipulated than ordinary folk with common sense. I watched 'Loose Change' and it uses media commentators as experts. I enjoyed the movie though ... Alaney2k (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::A lot of people would be happier at Everything2 or Knol, but they don't realize it, and think that because they CAN put stuff into WP, it's unfair that others 'take away their hard word on a power trip' (or whatever), when they are the ones who are ignoring longstanding policy and guidelines. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

:::What's needed is for everyone to have a "Me-pedia" where they can tailor the articles to exactly fit their standard of NPOV. Oh, wait, we already have that... it's called The Blog. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I've no desire for "2 cents out there" or anything of the sort; I've no gain from voicing an opinion on what is quite obviously an issue that has many - not just myself - no wishing to contribute to a site that for all intents and purposes acts as no more than a sounding board for the "anyones" who gleefully mis-edit and bastardise the sound, considered results of many a scholar. As an encyclopedia I'd have at least have expected less of the trigger-happy shooting down of so-called misinformation, otherwise perfectly sound within Wikipedia's source referencing guidelines.

::::It's double-standards. Is my point concise & clear enough for it to be understood?

::::80.229.192.163 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::I won't deny that wikipedia has an unfortunate amount of 'turf' mentality, and that wandering into some topic neighborhoods is a risky/painful endeavor. However, I think the encyclopedia overall does a pretty decent job, and there's always hope for the problem areas. If what you said above is true, then I think you ought to gird your loins, get yourself a registered username, and start (slowly and gracefully) trying to turn the bad things you're seeing into good things. Wikipedia is just like any other neighborhood: the more people who turn their backs, the easier it is for the thugs.

:::::just for fun: I was talking to my mother about some online thing, and she (slip-o-the-tongue, I think) ended up calling it the 'internut'. That seems to fit wikipedia to a T - maybe we should adopt the word formally? --Ludwigs2 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::There will be fringe theories, and no matter how many ordinary folk believe in them they wont be true. For example- the majority of Americans can believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or that President Obama is a practicing Muslim. Both are FALSE. In an encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia IS, it is NOT a community; ONLY an encyclopedia) it doesnt matter what the majority "believes" it is what is TRUE scientifically. This isnt the place where NPOV means "everyone gets an equal say and voices their opinions"; this is where science and fact reign. We need to keep the internut ideas to blogs where they belong (or to the voices in their heads, I took a poll and 10 of the 14 voices in my head agree...).Camelbinky (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Since when is "scientifically true" the yardstick we use? I thought the mantra was "verifiability, not truth"?!? — Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Yea, agreed. I think that this is what creates the problem I mentioned balow. There are certain editors who a zealously looking for a means to improve the encyclopedia, which is great as long as the emotional aspect is kept in check. More on point though, there are some editors who occasionally seem to be attempting to prove something about their knowledge by trying to rebut fringe (or occasionally mainstream!) theories. It's important to always keep in mind that we should be parroting what others say here, avoiding speaking with our own voice as much as possible.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Exactly. This thread encapsulates the usual lament of fringe POV-pushers who try and fail to inject their own version of The Truth^TM into Wikipedia. Flat Earthers, Creationists, homeopaths, 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, AIDS denialists, global warming deniers, UFO believers, paranormal enthusiasts, ultranationalists, and moon landing conspiracy theorists don't like not being able to present their beliefs as accepted fact, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is doing anything wrong. Fences&Windows 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::The only thing is that it's important not to censor out the existence and description of fringe theories from Wikipedia. I've see many an overzealous editor seek to completely excise any mention of many Fringe theories, which is actually worse in some ways then letting proponents add unfiltered content to Wikipedia.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I agree. Where a fringe theory is notable it should be described and the evidence for and against should be presented. Who supports the fringe theory should also be noted. Of course, the theory should not be presented as fact. Yaris678 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a QR Code, a type of 2-dimensional barcode, used to illustrate the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midi_Onodera&oldid=295245088 Midi Onodera], and wondered if it made sense. QR Codes are widespread in Japan, and probably other places, as a way to present information, such as web addresses, to camera phones. For instance, a store or park can put up a sign with a QR Code, and customers or visitors can snap the image to visit the website from their phones. Many online encoders and decoders are available, such as [http://zxing.appspot.com/generator/ zxing encoder] and [http://zxing.org/w/decode.jspx zxing decoder].

The article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midi_Onodera&oldid=295245088 Midi Onodera] is about a Canadian artist. As her portrait in an Infobox template, an editor added [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Midionodera_qrcodeportrait.jpg the QR Code for her website address], an image uploaded to Commons.

I searched Commons for other QR Codes. My search may not have caught them all, and I left out articles about barcode technology itself. (Search terms: "QR Code", "QRCode" and "Qr-code".) I found only one other Wikipedia article using a QR Code image:

• [http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assa%C3%AD&oldid=17672887 Assaí], Portuguese Wikipedia. The QR Code is below the Infobox in this case.

So, some questions:

1. Do the QR Codes add useful information to articles?

My answer would be "no", since the web address can already go in the Infobox. Generally I think Wikipedia should include more information rather than less, but I do not see how QR Codes are useful on a web page, which already has clickable links. Perhaps every Wikipedia page should have QR codes in its "printable version", but that is a larger issue.

2.But what if the artist created the barcode as a self-portrait?

Then the article should state that, and the image would be a great addition if licensed free.

3. If the QR Code is OK, does it belong as the portrait in the Infobox template?

My answer would be, "it depends."

4. Is QR Code a free format?

I get bored reading legalese, but here are previous discussions I found:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_18#Barcode_images
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_55#A_proposal_for_the_use_of_2D_barcodes_in_museum

--Colfer2 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

: I would generally agree with you that we shouldn't put QR codes in articles right now. It is an interesting feature, but though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a policy regarding tagging disambiguation pages with projects other than the disambiguation project? If so, where can I find it? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation will know. Fences&Windows 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:(Examples are always preferred, for clarity in questions).

:Talkpage wikiproject banners? Add anything especially relevant. Eg Eid could hypothetically have a WP:WikiProject Arab world banner added to its talkpage, I think.

:However, mass-additions should probably be discussed somewhere first, if you think they may prove divisive. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::I have a feeling this is related to a content dispute that Purplebackpack was involved in, which I skimmed over earlier on ANI. Killiondude (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:Purplebackpack is upset because the dab page Lincoln is tagged as part of the the Lincolnshire WikiProject, which he perceives as encouraging bias in the ongoing discussion at Talk:Lincoln about whether the title should redirect to Abraham Lincoln. Propaniac (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• WikiProjects are generally free to set their scope as they wish. –xeno^talk 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, marked as guideline, accepts as a regular procedure (even if not all projects do it) to include the "disambig" type MBelgrano (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Each project can decide whether they want to tag disambiguation pages. Some do, some don't. There is no policy issue about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:Actually, the question wasn't if it was mandatory, but if it was allowed (see the related discussion for bigger context). The answer was yes, it is allowed, projects that want to do so can do without problem. Other projects may decide not to do so, that's up to them (they can even decide to skip the article tagging completely, if desired) MBelgrano (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

{{tlx|rfctag|policy}}

Naming conventions, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, What Wikipedia is not: click on any of these links to give us your take on one or more content policy pages, and a summary of the comments will appear in one of the upcoming Policy Reports in the Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to these pages are available at WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. All responses are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:Also Attack page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have a big beef with whoever came up with the category names of "Settlements on Hudson River" and "Settlements in X County" (in regards to New York counties). Cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and CDP's are all being thrown into these broad categories. First off towns in NY are large and have many "settlements" (in NY we call them hamlets) and towns cant really be called a "settlement" themselves. CDP's arent "settlements" either, and also may encompass two or more hamlets (in one case I know of a CDP that has three hamlets mentioned in the name of the CDP itself). The only thing in NY that can truly be called a "settlement" is a hamlet. If further breakdown is needed instead of cities, towns, and villages being in the "X County" category itself then I suggest using "Cities in X County" and "Towns in X County" and "Villages in X County" etc etc so the same types are with each other, with doing the same thing breaking up the "Settlements on the Hudson River" category. The term "settlements" implies that these places are something they clearly not and shouldnt be a word used for modern-day incorporated places. Not all geographic/political places are the same and a categorization scheme that may work in other parts of the US or world may not work in NY or other states (like in New England, Michigan, or Wisconsin where towns cant be called "settlements" and are different than "civil townships" of other states). I really wish there'd be more leeway in allowing Wikiprojects to cover their own turf and allow them to come up with things themselves instead of "conforming" to some larger group-think about how things should be organized.Camelbinky (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:[http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=consistency&type=2 Consistency is ...]

:After poking around a little, our usage of "settlement" seems to come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and the primary human-habitation infobox {{tl|Infobox settlement}}. You'd best bring it up in one of those places first, if you want to change things.

:Consistency is not necessarily equal to group-think. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::In the discipline of geography as in WP (:Human settlement), 'settlement' is the collective term applied to any place where people live, from hamlet to major city or larger. Hmains (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Well thats nice about the discipline of geography, however in NY we dont use it in that manner and I'd appreciate it if people didnt mess with categories they have no intention of working on the articles themselve. The most relevant Wikiproject to a topic should have primary responsibility for wording so that it is correct to that topic. For the articles I am worried about and the categories I have mentioned that would be the Wikiproject NY and daughter wikiprojects such as wikiprojects capital district, syracuse, hudson valley, and new york city. Using a word like settlements gives the wrong impression; NO ONE is going to call the city of New York a SETTLEMENT; it isnt correct and you'd get laughed at, and I took quite a bit of urban planning courses in college (at least 7 including the courses I had to take to become CADD certified) and I dont remember once hearing that a settlement is anything from a hamlet to a major city. In the anthropology courses I took settlements referred to rural fringe hamlets on a frontier.Camelbinky (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::::New york is a fairly classic river estuary settlement. Certianly run across london being described as a settlement and it would be rather odd for a single city on the planet to somehow have something special about it to escape that designation.©Geni 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:the difficulty is that each state in the US uses the terms differently, and each country in the world has its own terminology. a reader or editor here may know intuitively the one for his own area, but is not likely to know everywhere else. If they are to find things in categories, the terminology needs to be universal. There have been a good number of long lame disputes about whether to call some place a town or village or whatever, and the fewer reasons we have for them the better. We're just a general encyclopedia, not the Board of Geographical Names. We want to be a good ready-reference, but not are not aiming at being a definitive authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

:::Agreed, settlement seems to cover all cases around the world. WE can't define classes of things using the terms used in one region of one country. The definition of a city in the USA, UK and Spain (to take just three examples) is quite different, likewise for town, village, township, parish, townland, municipality, metropolis, conurbation, hamlet, community, commune, pueblo, etc. And definitions vary in different parts of all of those countries. We are dealing with over two hundred countries/nations/states on Wikipedia, all them have settlements.Jezhotwells (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::::The problem is, though, that real people (as opposed to WP editors) don't recognize "settlement" as referring to towns and cities. I remember the days when I was a real person using WP, and having difficulty finding a category of cities in some country because it was hidden away under "Settlements in ...". I would suggest changing the "Settlements..." categories to "Towns and villages...". It might not be 100% accurate (some settlements are not even villages), but it would be much more helpful to the ordinary reader.--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::In all honesty, I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I have a guess. Maybe those opposed to the term settlement are interpreting the word in some way they don't make explicit. To me settlement is a fairly generic term that would cover all of these cities, towns, and other sorts of communities. Do Kotniski's "real people", for example, use a more specific definition of settlement that would make the categorization misleading in some way? Ntsimp (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::I missed Camelbinky's earlier "rural fringe hamlets on a frontier." OK, so I guessed right, but it was made explicit. Looks like it was recognized a long time ago that Wikipedia needs some unifying term, and settlement was chosen. I'm fine with it, but anyone is welcome to propose a different word. But I think it has to be the same consistent term throughout the project. Ntsimp (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:Sounds like a lot of hulaballoo over semantics. "Settlement" was chosen as a neutral term used to encompass disparate entities such as town, city, hamlet, village, and so on. An alternative could be "Populated Place" but settlement works just as well. It is unfortunate that some folks working on articles in New York may feel this is not an elegant solution for their situation, but consistency across categories of this nature are pretty important if they are to remain useful tools to the reader and the editor. Shereth 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::They're not useful if they describe perfectly everyday things with a quite un-everyday name. People just don't read "Settlements in England" and expect to find London and Manchester there. At least, they don't if they're like me. What do you think of my "Towns and villages in..." idea?--Kotniski (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:::For my part, I would expect to find London and Manchester under Settlements in England but not under Towns and villages in England. London and Manchester are cities (and thus settlements) and not towns or villages. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Echoing the previous statement for the most part. That settlement = small is a point of view that is held by some, and I suppose to an extent any word we choose will have different connotations for different people. The way I see it is that settlement = place where people have settled, and thus city, town, village and hamlet are all a subset of "settlement". Each type of settlement therein has a different definition depending on jurisdiction and thus cannot be applied universally; to my knowledge, "settlement" is not used as a legal definition for a populated place and safer to apply in a universal fashion. Shereth 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::::I still don't believe that ordinary readers (and it will be quite ordinary people - not specialists - who are looking for these articles) understand the word "settlement" in the way you want them to. I can't prove it, but I suspect that those who come here saying they have such an understanding have it only because of the strong influence of their Wikipedia experience. (Oh, and America is also a place where people have settled.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::For what it is worth, our own article on City states "A city is a relatively large and permanent settlement ..."; Town, Village and Hamlet all use similar language describing each as a settlement. Hence, I believe the term "settlement" was rightly chosen as the simplest and most objective term for the purposes of categorizing. Shereth 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::FWIW, I don't think either viewpoint here is compelling. I'm not exactly sure why, but "Settlement" does seem... odd. "Populated place" seems, to me, to be much more representative. I wouldn't bother taking the time to change either to the other though, outside of remaining consistent.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Again, America and the Earth are populated places. Why not simply "Towns and villages...", which all readers will immediately get? (In fact, in many cases it probably isn't necessary to have such a category at all; we could go directly to a "Towns..." category and a "Villages..." category (and "Cities..." if applicable), without forcing readers through an extra level of navigation.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Because "town" and "village" are particular classes of municipality in many states in the U.S. and so would be ambiguous if used as generic terms. postdlf (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::FYI: the United States Board of Geographic Names uses "Populated Place". I'm almost positive that "everyone else" follows suit, but I honestly can't remember who "everyone else" is off the top of my head (I used to know, dammit... frustrating).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::The USGS in general uses the term, as well, which was why I suggested it as a possible alternative. Personally I find it a little inelegant compared to "settlement" but if that term is causing so much consternation, I would be ok with that as an alternative. Shereth 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::AFAIC "populated places" has all the same disadvantages as "settlements" (ordinary readers won't realize that it means something very familiar). If we can't say something like "Towns and villages" because of the trans-Atlantic divide, then it looks like we're stuck with settlements, but I'd like to see some of these categories eliminated from the hierarchy as I suggested above.--Kotniski (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::What do other gazetteers use? The USGS usage seems to dominate in US sources, but elsewhere there may be more variety.LeadSongDog come howl 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I don't see any merit in eliminating settlement categories as parents for all classes of settlements, if that's what is meant by "some of these categories [being] eliminated from the hierarchy." In the U.S., each state has municipalities (which are often divided into two or more classes, such as "cities" or "villages", which often reflect substantive differences in local government), incorporated communities, census-designated places, neighborhoods...and there are categories for former settlements, categories for fictional settlements, categories for the histories of settlements... All of this needs to be grouped together based on the shared underlying topic. I don't think that's reasonably debatable. So it's just a question of what the best generic term is to use. I used to support "community," but that was deprecated because many thought it was ambiguous as to whether it meant a geographic, brick and mortar community (i.e., a settlement) or a cultural community (i.e., Twilight fandom). postdlf (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, some states have "settlements by county" categories. Some have "by county" categories for each type of settlement, such as cities, CDPs, etc. Some have no county subdivisions, in which case the settlement articles, regardless of type, are just placed directly in the county categories (this is the system set up when categories were first introduced). The category system works best when it presents multiple levels of navigation and grouping, rather than intersecting facts more and more into narrower and narrower categories. So I believe the best system would be to keep the type of settlement categorized only at the state level, and then settlements broadly categorized at the county level (or maybe municipalities and unincorporated communities by county, but no more finely drawn than that). So that way readers could browse either by type or by county, rather than forcing them to browse by type and county at the same time. This is a good principle generally in categorization; preserving different levels of generality rather than merging all into the very specific. This results in articles being directly linked to more articles by a variety of shared characteristics rather than only to those articles that share multiple characteristics. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would rather see "Populated place" because to me a "settlement" means a place where people live that is surrounded by uninhabited land. For example, I really don't see Oak Park, Illinois as a settlement, since it abuts other populated places on all sides, and its street grid is a continuation of its neighbors. Abductive (reasoning) 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::It doesn't matter what it means to any individual editor. Given that all Wikipedia content should follow reliable secondary sources, "settlement", as defined in Human settlement and used in city, town, village and hamlet (place), is the correct term to use. It should be preferred over "populated place", which has a specific legal meaning in the US only. Any categories that editors feel are ambiguous can have a note added to explain (e.g. "The definition of settlement includes all cities, towns, villages and hamlets" in :Category:Settlements on the Hudson River). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::humm... first, I'm not aware of any actual "legal meaning" to the term "populated place". Would you care to elaborate on that? Second, I'm almost positive that there are European and Canadian sources that also use the term "populated place". As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain that the term originated in Canada.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::::I read USGS as having some kind of legal standing: Populated place. I don't really know how this American "incorporated town" thing works. In the rest of the world people just live places. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::You might be interested in Municipal corporation. As far as the USGS and the term "populated place" is concerned, it is one of the Feature Classes used in the GNIS and is a defined term, but it's merely a definition and does not have any legal standing [http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:8:4046286719295644]. Shereth 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:The American (although not the British) term would be municipalities. Note that several states recognize "unincorporated municipalities" and I believe NY is one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::But ALL of these things are also settlements, which is why the categories, articles and lists all use the term. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I doubt that. I suspect that the original choice of "settlement" over "populated place" is idiosyncratic to En.Wikipedia. Perhaps one could argue that it is better to use fewer syllables. I really don't care, but I would back a change if enough people felt it was important. Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::For the most part "municipality" is confined to incorporated places, and requires a local governing body; not every settlement in the US is a municipality. Shereth 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this is a silly newbie question that's been dealt with before. I searched and couldn't find anything relevant.

Having a mental blank this morning, I couldn't remember my wikipedia password, so I clicked on the friendly "E-mail new password" button on the login screen. Imagine my surprise to be presented with an error message: "Your IP address is blocked from editing, and so is not allowed to use the password recovery function to prevent abuse." I already knew that this IP address was blocked (it's on a university campus, shared by many people); I registered an account for the very purpose of being able to use wikipedia from my work computer. I thought the purpose of blocking an IP address was to bar those people who don't wish to sign in to an account, not those who do.

Surely there is some good reason for this policy (besides teaching us the meaning of irony). Can someone enlighten me? (And if there is a clear and concise reason, it would be a fine idea to display it as part of the error message.) Jowa fan (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps they think that other (bad) people use your computer, then they might also gain access to your e-mail account and steal your password? Doesn't seem very likely to me, I admit.--Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::If it were not prevented, anyone at that IP (i.e. the entire campus) would be able to request your password and steal your account. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Only if they hacked his e-mail account.--Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:The email new password function sends an email to whatever username you put in the box. This can hence be used to spam users that you don't like. For that reason blocked accounts are not allowed to use the email password function (since historically it has been used to throw emails at the people who blocked them, etc.) Dragons flight (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::Oh right, I see. But is this a big enough problem to outweigh the problem described here? (Presumably the number of password requests for an account could be limited to a reasonable number per time period, to keep the potential spam burden insignificant.) Well, I guess this would be better discussed at WP:VPT or bugzilla, if anyone wants to press it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks, this does make sense. But with modern email software, it shouldn't be a huge problem: most email readers can now set up filters, so unwanted password recovery emails can be automatically deleted. Jowa fan (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:Jowa, I put in your username and clicked the button, so you should be getting a new password emailed to you. Problem solved. Dragons flight (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::Very thoughtful. But my mental blank was only temporary, as you can tell from the fact that I managed to log in and post here ;-) Jowa fan (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting problem. I guess having some requests throttled rather than locked might solve the problem an I wonder if there is some use in having the facility to throttle different types of requests for users or IPs. It is impressive how inventive vandals can be. Dmcq (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:Or perhaps requiring you to input your email address and username in order to get a password-reminder (vandals presumably wouldn't know your address)... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia talk:Essay on the notability of software#RfC: Should this notability essay be promoted to the status of a guideline. Pcap ping 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are changes like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ad_van_den_Berg&action=historysubmit&diff=133909522&oldid=133812309 this one] generally made without a vote? What I mean is, is a vote only required for such a change when someone thinks it's necessary? If a vote is required, why does the software allow such changes without alarm bells going off? If there was a vote, how can I figure out where the 'vote log' is? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:That redirect was as a result of this WP:Articles for deletion/Ad van den Berg, an AfD debate in May 2007. i found this out by looking at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ad_van_den_Berg&action=history Revision history of Ad van den Berg]. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:Yes; article merges do not require a vote if they are uncontroversial. But (1) the link you posted is from 2007 and (2) it was the result of an AFD discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks for the information. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:::If an article is not nominated at Articles For Deletion, then in almost all cases I would strongly suggest that merging one article into another article, and changing the first article into a redirect to the second article, be discussed first on the talk page of the first article. The redirect does have the effect of deleting an article, and so it should generally only be done after such a discussion takes place. Most of the time you'd want to wait at least a week before doing the merge. The {{tl|Mergeto}} and {{tl|Mergefrom}} templates should be placed on the two articles to alert editors to the discussion. If the merge is super-non-controversial then I guess this could be skipped. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::::No, that sort of beurocracy is not, and should not be, required. If there is any foreseeable controversy about performing a merger then a discussion should be started, but you don't need permission to perform a merger.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::It's not a bureaucracy, it's a procedure that, in my opinion, should be used in most cases of merging articles that don't have an AFD nomination. The idea is that, in general, editors should not unilaterally delete articles. Instead they should open a talk page discussion and try to create a consensus that the article should be deleted, i.e. merged into another article and changed to a redirect. If a reasonable person would not object to the merge, then by all means just do the merge. Otherwise there should be some kind of discussion before an article is deleted. I'm not sure, but maybe we are already in agreement about this -- you said, "If there is any foreseeable controversy about performing a merger then a discussion should be started, but you don't need permission to perform a merger." I'm saying the same thing, I think. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of a wiki is that any change can easily be undone,so there's no need to forbid edits that turn articles into redirects without discussion. In many instances this may be exactly what should be done. Following the Be bold editing guideline, there's no need to stand on formality. Just go ahead and do what seems right unless there is a clear sign that it might be a controversial action.

The example given is a good one. All usable content from an article about a person whose sole claim to fame is as treasurer of a minor political party was merged with the article about the party and the original article was changed to a redirect. Note also that in this case the merger had been mandated after a deletion discussion, but this is not always the case, nor is it a precondition for a merge or redirect. In some cases, where two articles are duplicates in content, a redirect without merging is appropriate. --TS 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:Exactly. We need to be really careful to prevent the development of bureaucratic cruft around around merging. Just grow a pair and do the merge, for crying out loud. If you see one that you disagree with, go ahead and revert it and start a discussion. If you're reverted, then discuss the issue. Otherwise, just let them happen. There's already enough of a problem with mergers without intentionally making the problem worse.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::I appreciate the idea of not adding unnecessary rules and procedures. Being bold is often a good approach. But, "growing a pair" has nothing to do with it. Articles should not be merged into other articles without discussion, except when doing so is truly non-controversial, in which case it's fine. So, once again it's a case of using common sense. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::: I think we basically agree, and continuing this thread would be like arguing over whether the glass is half full or half empty. --TS 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::::You're right. And, just to show you that my heart's in the right place, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Country_Casanova&diff=314014423&oldid=313086906 here's] an example, where I merged one article into another, without any prior discussion. Cheers, all. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::My only real concern here was... er, "editorial" (in the sense of newspaper editorial opinion, if that makes sense). The Village pump is basically it for what little community there is here on Wikipedia, so things said here tend to be... magnified? If the commentary here appears supportive of a stance that merges are "not allowed" without jumping through hoops, then there are people who will take that and run with it. It's not that we ever really disagreed, it's just a question of... rhetoric, I guess. Does this make sense at all? I'm having trouble expressing this appropriately, it seems.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::It does make sense. Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the time a "prod" tag must remain uncontested before the article gets deleted be cut down to three days. Three days should be enough time for the proponents of the article to voice their opinions -- not that it takes much to voice an opinion in the first place, as all one has to do is to remove the tag. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:WT:PROD would be the relevant place to bring this up (not that it's irrelevant here). --Cybercobra (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

: Not everyone checks Wikipedia every day. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::Foolish people, they are. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::Which is the need for shortening the time period? If an article needs to be deleted inmediately, there is speedy deletion for clear cases MBelgrano (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:Not everyone checks wiki daily; seven days is fine. -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:Seven days for PROD is perfectly reasonable, anything that needs to go sooner than that we have CSD. -SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

{{archive top}}

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_ Wikipedia policy neutral? Are the administrators neutral?

----

[...]

This discussion should be moved elsewhere (WP:ANI, I guess), since it does not seem to be about policy in general but rather about a specific incident of policy enforcement. Rd232 ^talk 19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Per the discussion at WT:RFA#Unchecking the box, an RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Your collective input is desired. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:I've refactored this header to make it more clear what this RfC is about. Nathan ^T 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi; I've made a proposal about the workings of ProposedDeletion on the policy talkpage here – eyes requested! ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 08:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

you can't post anything - even for articles of tiny attention - without being attacked by lawyer-wannabies. this is ridiculous, unproductive, destructive. bye. --Leladax (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:Sorry, what is a lawyer-wannabe? Someone who wants to be a lawyer? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::Well, I think with comments such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Affirmative_action&diff=prev&oldid=336445178] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tsutomu_Yamaguchi&diff=prev&oldid=336440392], the OP has earned warnings for unproductive behavior. Grsz¹¹ 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Regardless, he makes a point...

:::For TreasuryTag (assuming that you're not just making a snide comment), here's possibly a more "Wikipedia like" translation: There's too much process wonkery here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::::On this occasion it wasn't actually snide, no ;) Given that the editor has gone round demanding stuff, it doesn't sound like he has much of a leg to stand on, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm sure you're right about Leladax. Chillum is saying essentially the same thing, below. Like I said above though, regardless of his/her behavior and any problems there, I think that the point being brought up here is perfectly valid. There's too much process wonkery here. But anyway, many Wikipedians typically do conflate the actual point with the user (which is a whole other complaint/discussion), so it's not really a point worth perusing further here. I just wanted to reply to a direct response to my earlier comment, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see it. I have managed to edit here since 2006 without issue or running into lawyers. I suppose if I went around making demands I might be told I have no standing to make demands, but that is not really the same thing. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:Chillum, by and on behalf of the below signed, you are hereby on notice of your lack of standing. Further attempts to stand may and will be construed as grounds for litigation, on causes of action including but not limited to trespass to chattels, false light, false imprisonment, enterprise liability, and alienation of affection. Res ipsa loquitur, postdlf, Esq. 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:: Hmmm, Wikipedia:No legal threats ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Treasury Tag, here is a perfect illustration in answer to your question. Postdlf's comment is an example of what a comment by lawyer would look like. Kim's comment is an example of what a comment by a lawyer-wannabe would look like. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah, we're all lawyers now. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:::: Low blow, Low blow! :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::I couldn't resist. So sue me... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::: :-D . "Can we keep hir, ma?" --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::The basic premise is valid no matter how people word it wrongly. There is too much emphasis by certain individuals on policies as laws and enforced and interpretated as if they are laws and discussions are courtcases. If we treat policies as they are supposed to be (as our best known way of doing things generally as we know it right now) and not as set standards set in stone then wiki-lawyering and such would fall by the wayside. We need to make sure we slap down those individuals and make it abundantly clear that we dont have laws or "rules" and that whatever consensus determines at any given point is what is done, policies describe what we've done, not prescribe what must be done in the future.Camelbinky (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::I agree with you to a point. I've often seen rote quotation of a policy (or worse, just an WP:ACRONYM) presented as an argument when the situation really calls for a reasoned application of that policy. We should keep/delete Content A because Policy B says Characteristic C is not permitted. What may be missing is an explanation of why we think A is C. It's also often a good idea to remind one another of the supposed benefit underlying the policy or guideline, which often helps us decide whether and how to apply it. On the other hand, one of the benefits of policies and guidelines are so we don't have to keep having the same discussions over and over. A lot of time and labor would be wasted if every quality-control issue were perpetually up for discussion as if no one had dealt with it before. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::: Actually, it is perpetually up for discussion. However, linking to a page implies "just pretend I said this", the other person can then reply with a link back, implying "just pretend I said that". "99%" (made up number) of the time, that might be sufficient. On the other tentacle, that means that "1%" of the time, it isn't, and you actually still need to do more. Looking at the number of edits the young 'uns need to do to even just make admin these days; that 1% means a LOT of times where you need to do something more ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC) These values are an estimate; Actual numbers may vary; offer void in states where offers are voided.

::::::: Incidentally: Some things policy can't do. For everything else there's master WP:WOTTAcard. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::: It's also often a good idea to remind one another of the supposed benefit underlying the policy or guideline, which often helps us decide whether and how to apply it — my words exactly. Wikipedia does a very poor job in telling why a given policy is what it is. What is the benefit, and how why did we write this policy up in the first place? Such information is currently very difficult, if not impossible to find. For each policy page, we need an essay describing the process how that policy was developed, which bad things it is supposed to prevent and what the policy's original purpose is. Offliner (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, it seems like layers of "bureaucruft" seem to somehow accrue on stuff, never to be removed. This is actually a serious threat for an online community like ours. I would be very interested in figuring out solutions on how to reverse this process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::I doesn't add anything the discussion, but just this week my wife accidentally coined the term "bureaucrap", which many times seems apropos. — Loadmaster (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

:One way to rectify that problems is to say "we will not have anything as a policy or guideline that does not directly relate to creating an encyclopedia". We are first and foremost and ONLY an encyclopedia, not a community or social experiment and we are not here to find new ways of social control. We are individuals who want to work on an online encyclopedia, any other reason for being here is irrelevant and those here for any other reason are no different than vandals.Camelbinky (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::Do you have an existing policy or guideline in mind that you don't consider related to creating an encyclopedia? postdlf (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Pretty much any of the ettiquette ones, like "dont write in bold on a talk page its yelling!" Though the wording is less harsh now than it used to be before I had to throw a fit about it and got it changed. What does telling people not to write in bold on a talk page have to do with editing an article? I'm sure there's other unneeded, petty, or useless things out there too. I'm sure some wikilawyering can show how it is tangentially related to editing... but I dont believe any of the social control ideas that have come through Wikipedia help actual editing. In fact we shouldnt even be HERE right now we should just have articles that you can edit and that is it, we waste too much time on talking about these social aspect things instead of spending time researching and adding information to articles.Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Then why ARE you 'here'? Go edit articles in peace, noone's stopping you. As for everyone else, well considering it's a completely volunteer project, we all can do what we want. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::Um, I was answering Postdlf's question, and your response was very uncivil and uncalled for. What is your problem? Im not allowed my opinion and to voice it? Since this is your first post on this thread I see no reason why you would even be commenting now and only in response to my last comment unless there was a ulterior motive personally directed towards me. I hope your next response is that of an apology, otherwise we can take this to the wikiquette noticeboard. I believe policy states quite clearly that you respond about comments, not the commenter. And no your not allowed to do "what you want", you cant make Wikipedia a social networking site like Facebook for example. So your very comment is devoid of what Wikipedia is about, which it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, nothing more, nothing less.Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::Translated, your sentence says "IF apology, GOTO end; ELSE, GOTO Wikiquette-violation noticeboard."

::::::In a thread about wikilawyering!

::::::Unless someone has a unique solution to fixing the argumentative aspects of human nature, I propose we just end this thread now. Confucius say, "All people are the same, only their habits differ."^{[citation required]}

::::::First person who responds to this thread, thereby further preventing it from getting archived, loses. Everyone who remains wisely silent, wins! -- Quiddity (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I guess I lose, then. Just wanted to point out that GOTO should never, ever be used. Also, Camelbinky, weren't you just arguing that we should get rid of the civility policies, and then you go and threaten someone with WQA? Seems a tad hypocritical. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:What's hypocritical is that users who go around spouting that civility must exist and take up all their time with these inane topics are the ones that are the most uncivil when you disagree with them or want to get rid of things. My complaint was valid about what she said. Just because I dont care for the civility policies doesnt mean I'm not going to take advantage of the fact that they exist. It isnt being hypocritical, its applying neorealism to Wikipedia; I act within the constraints and benefits provided by the anarchic system that exists as long as it is in my best interest whether I agree with the way the system is or not. Still waiting on that apology. Dont see why a couple words saying "I may have been too harsh" is so hard and why others find that their two cents is needed regarding what was said to me... I thought this thread was a good one until I was personally attacked.Camelbinky (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::I sincerely doubt you're going to get an apology. I see nothing in that statement that qualifies as a personal attack. is it the "why are you here" part? the "nobody's stopping you from just editing articles" part? the "we're volunteers" part? I'm just not seeing it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Reading all this, I have to point out some sociological facts of life.

:::* Wherever you get more than two people interacting, they are going to form a community. In particular, when you put people together to try to achieve a common goal (such as building an encyclopedia), they will naturally begin cooperating, competing, organizing and dividing labor, and creating likes, dislikes and established patterns of interaction that are what communities are. Saying that wikipedia is not a community is a bit like claiming that the earth and the moon just happen to stay close to each other and gravity has nothing to do with it.

:::* A community without some solid norms of civil interaction will always - always! - create them. The problem is, most new communities begin in Lord of the Flies mode. This is particularly true for wikipedia (since normal social conventions don't translate well into cyber interactions) means several things:

:::** Groups organize around collective POVs (wikipedia's equivalent of rotting boar's heads, down the same kind of fearful, mystical devotion)

:::** Groups create and defend their own internal norms, and try to force them on other groups, often violently and unreasoningly (I can think of at least four different groups on wikipedia that have developed their own peculiar interpretations of policy and refuse to listen to any other, and there's at least two different interpretations defended above)

:::** Outcasts and those not affiliated with groups are actively hunted with a particular viciousness (non-affiiated people threaten the group identity much more than opponents - that's why neutral editors are often attacked if they try to intervene on contested pages)

:::* This will continue until some kind of common group norm is internalized by a sufficient number of people that it becomes a de facto truth. until that time the project will be dominated by any tribes that are large enough to enforce their will on a given selection of articles, and the whole thing will be an exquisite case study for Machiavelli's next book. honestly, the only thing that's saved wikipedia to date is that most editors really are trying to make a good encyclopedia. their conception of a good encyclopedia is fetishistic (in the non-sexual sense of the word), which spoils a lot of pages and creates a lot of conflict, but at least it keeps the project on focus.

::: So I can see why a new editor might feel frustrated and paranoid - they wandered into the territory of some wiki-tribe and got hit with an unexpected hail of barbed comments, and probably can't even get a decent explanation for it. very off-putting, that. --Ludwigs2 05:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Iron law of oligarchy. Its will be done. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::::The real trouble here is that Wikipedia has actively chosen to eschew the abundance of preexisting expert online community building advice in favor of the chaos and institutional anti-social behavior that we currently deal with. A large part of the problem here is technological, which liquidthreads should help with significantly, eventually. The other aspect of this problem though is more serious, in that there's been a groupthink decision made to purposely "go our own way" ("This is Wikipedia! We're so smart and big that we need or own special rules!"). It's sad, but I've become resigned to the fact that "we" want English Wikipedia to be socially dysfunctional.12:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohms law (talk • contribs)

:::::LiquidThreads is only a start. We'd need a WYSIWYG to make real headway in the technology department. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::True, but at least it's something (and I can't believe that I forgot to sign my post above...)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::And thats the problem! "Anytime you get a group together they are going to need social order" blah blah blah. And NO, that is not the case. I have a degree in poli sci, working on my masters for poli sci as well, and though my discipline focus is in comparative politics, I still know more than most about the social aspects of political organization and such than most. It is not in fact inevitable that INDIVIDUALS who come a website to work on an ENCYCLOPEDIA must form social cohesion. The social aspect and organization has developed because there are those amongst us who want and need social order wherever they are and therefore must impose it on others (we all now those types who think their mores must be enforced on others). If the only reason you log on every day to Wikipedia is to strengthen policies, enforce conformity, make sure policies are enforced, ban people for incivility, and pretty much do anything BUT any meaningful editing or improving to an article (which could be as simple as just copyediting, a very important job) then you are part of the problem of why there exists even the semblence of a "community". If Wikipedia only existed of individuals who came to edit articles (or copyedit, or add photos, or fix dead-link references, etc) then there would be no "community". Unfortunately some are here not for the purpose of working on an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Sadly, such a viewpoint is the exact reason we have so many problems here. Complete anarchy inevitably leads to conflict. No one is suggesting that an authoritarian regime be imposed on Wikipedia, but some friggin' leadership would certainly go a long way towards settling things down around here. Everything almost inevitably becoming a conflict, and the uncertainty involved in editing here, certainly doesn't help the content or the community.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Nothing personal, but that's just not true. Conflict that it seems you are worried about is a direct result of there being too much bureaucracy and policy-wonkish behaviour already, not a lack of leadership. Disagreements on "Should IAR really exist?", "what's the real difference between a policy and a guideline?", "should we have republicanism?", "what is the role of Jimbo?", "Does policy trump consensus?", "what is the role of the 5P?" how are those perennial discussions anything about the encyclopedia? (and those are some of the most heated controversial subjects around) A content dispute in an article talk page is no ones concern but those who know and care about the article. A person calling another a dipshit is no ones concern but the person who was called a dipshit. If we stopped spending time on non-encyclopedic matters there would be LESS drama. A little content dispute becomes enlarged to multiple forums, eventually something happens and a wikittiquette complaint or AN/I complaint is filed, shit even Arbcom is dragged in eventually because the dispute becomes so entrenched and drags in other problems and hostility about other issues. Why? Because of bureaucracy and people not just letting things die on their own. Simpler is better. This is an encyclopedia. If you treat it as such and stop with social engineering then there is less to argue and get upset about. If everyone just edited articles and stopped with trying to make people (and articles) fit a certain mold of what "you" (generic Wikipedian) want them to act or look like. Using a word like anarchy is not applicable to this, this is an encyclopedia, cant have anarchy because that implies you can have the opposite, and this is an encyclopedia. Just an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

{{out}}

Camelbinky, I really have to wonder how much of your degree is purely theoretical. Because saying this is just an encyclopedia ignores the fact that everyone here talking to you is a real person. None of this occurs in a vacuum. And your entire premise of " If we stopped spending time on non-encyclopedic matters there would be LESS drama" seems predicated on the fact that X "is no ones concern" but the people directly involved in the discussion (even if said discussion is really harassment and abuse). I suppose there would be less drama, because no one outside that situation would even know about it... but that's unrealistic as soon as you consider that we're humans. People talk and depend on each other. No matter how many times you repeat "this is an encyclopedia", you can't ignore the fact that there are real people here, and we're social animals. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, rules for conduct are necessary exactly because none of us are editing in a vacuum. How we interact with one another would not be an issue only if we all owned articles so that no two individuals could edit the same content (and thus disagree over how to edit it), which would require us to agree on which articles we would own...and only if no one needed anyone else to help write those articles... Just as rules of conduct in society might be unnecessary only if there were unlimited resources, and no way to injure one another, and no need to cooperate with others to meet our own goals and needs, and... Instead, to function in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we need to deal with interaction, discussion, compromise, dispute resolution. If those interactions are marked by incivility, then substantive discussions are disrupted, and good editors are driven away who don't want to volunteer their time in a hostile environment.

:But let's put it another way. Why would you ever need to call someone else a "dipshit" in order to write an encyclopedia? postdlf (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::Camelbinky: One PoliSci person to another, you are lost in the abstractions of classical liberal idealism. What you say makes perfect sense if everyone who participated was rational, independent, task-oriented, and fully informed on all relevant matters, and if knowledge itself was well-ordered, factual, and fully transparent to human reason (John Locke at his best, yah?). that set of ideals still runs as a motif in politics because it's a very useful bit of rhetoric for manipulating the populace, but no one in scholarly circles (not even Rawls) would take those ideals as a factual reality. knowledge is fuzzy and incomplete; people are uninformed, opinionated, and less than fully rational - In the best-case scenario people in any group get by and make progress by being reasonable, cooperative, polite, and generally tolerant of each other's weaknesses, but those are all qualities of community (and must be, because only a community can give weight to the idea that those qualities must be given as well as received).

::You want my suggestion for the quickest way to improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia? Give some serious teeth to wp:civ. mandatory 1 day civ-blocks for any editor who abuses another editor on an article talk page, mandatory 4 day civ-blocks for any editor who reverts substantial additions without discussion in talk, other short blocks for other kinds of rude, uncivil and arrogant behavior, without any mechanism for unblocking and with a firm no exceptions policy. i.e. people get the same punishment regardless of how established or good or whatever they are as editors, and regardless of whether they are IPs or admins; people who abuse each other both get the same punishment, without any consideration of who started it. It's basically the same kind of 'time out' thing parents use on 6 year olds. set that up as policy, enforce it with painful rigor, and within two weeks we would have the most polite, gracious, and civil talk pages you can imagine, because it just. would. not. be. worth it for anyone to let their inner brat out. of course, we'd have to set up civ-blocks as something different (don't want them counting in the same way as blocks for more serious offenses) and we'd have to set up effective criteria for judging (don't want people screaming to block others over minor slips), but if we make people see that the choice is between editing nicely or not editing at all for a day or two, most people will get the idea fairly quickly. --Ludwigs2 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Bullshit. :-) (Note: When #words > 10, that formal response is statistically assured of being sufficiently true to the case at hand to apply.)

Meanwhile, it seems that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACivility%2FPoll&action=historysubmit&diff=303568739&oldid=303329564 , my brief proposal at the Civility/Poll] may reinforce some aspects of the BS above. ;-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:::: and thus you exclude everything that remotely resembles thought. (I took pains to keep that to <10 words, and <=3 syllables, to respect your self-admitted limitations). --Ludwigs2 21:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::And those who believe the world will decide on the basis of more than a haiku, are thinking too hard. :-) (Or perhaps merely enamored with the idea that analytic elaboration naturally leads to assent.)

But as for encoding details in brief transmissions. (1) Is calling "bullshit" a breach of civility? (2) Is a "tax code" version of civility policy a useful idea? (3) Is pretending that someone has not said something useful to consider, when they have :-), a breach of civility? (4-1,000 available upon request) More? ^;^ Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::: Hey, I like haiku! and I do believe that explaining things (within reason) is helpful. I also understand that that there's an evolutionary movement in homo sapiens towards shortened attention span, and I think the result of that will be that we'll eventually have to remove the term sapiens from the nomenclature. of course, if that happens, we won't be the ones doing the removing (that will be the Morlocks).

::::::: Wisdom can afford to be pithy; knowledge is always long-winded. (10 words) {{=)|wink}}

::::::: but to answer your points:

::::::::# no. 'bullshit' my be emphatic, but it's not personal. if you said 'editor X is spewing bullshit' that's personal, and uncivil.

::::::::# that kind of tax code is unnecessary, as well as a pure straw man argument. comments about editors are uncivil, comments about content aren't, anything ambiguous gets discussed at ANI with a decent application of common sense. which is what already happens, except that since there are no real rules about it, civility issues at ANI are handled haphazardly and with an extreme bias against new, unregistered, or unpopular editors.

::::::::# depends on what you mean, but this isn't really a civility issue (more of a failure of the consensus process). I normally talk to people the way I would to a decent college undergraduate. when they miss the point or misrepresent what I say in drastic terms, I repeat myself once, and then start an age regression: repeat the point the way I would to a high school student, then the way I would to a grammar school student, then the way I would to a six year old. if it's a misunderstanding, the first or second repetition is enough; if it's intentional they will either give it up or get so enraged at being talked to like a child that the conversation grinds to a halt. If I stray over into attacking them as childish, I'd be in breach of civility; if they stray over into attacking me, that would be a breach of civility. so long as it's merely a discussion about content, though, it's not really a civility issue.

:::::::: Civility doesn't mean being sweet to people (though I know a lot of people misinterpret it that way). civility means acting like an adult, and giving the other people around you a certain degree of respect and consideration. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also often a good idea to remind one another of the supposed benefit underlying the policy or guideline, which often helps us decide whether and how to apply it — my words exactly. Wikipedia does a very poor job in telling why a given policy is what it is. What is the benefit, and how why did we write this policy up in the first place? Such information is currently very difficult, if not impossible to find. For each policy page, we need an essay describing the process how that policy was developed, which bad things it is supposed to prevent and what the policy's original purpose is. Offliner (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:I found this to be a useful comment to possibly starting a wider conversation about the potential for corrective action to be taken to address the criticisms here, so I've copied/re-factored User:Offliner's comment to this sub-section.

:Should we, and could we, come up with a guideline of some sort specifying what and how to include in the lead of Policy and Guideline documents?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::Perhaps not so much in the lead, but a "Background" section or some such could provide some explanation of why a policy exists. This may be helpful both for those seeking to understand the policy, and for maintenance (i.e. those seeking to change it). Downside: more text; potential for undermining what the main text of the policy actually says. Rd232 ^talk 19:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:::humm... would Downside: more text; potential for undermining what the main text of the policy actually says. really be a downside, though? I mean, if and when the "background" text itself has gained consensus, at least... which brings up a question about how to "properly" implement the potential change.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::::without taking a stand on whether or not this would be helpful, I just want to point out that what you're trying to do here is get people to understand the spirit in which a policy or guideline was intended. This will be helpful for people who are actually interested in understanding what the policy is for, so to that end it would be good, but I don't think it would address this problem, because the wikilawyering problem comes from people who try to use the letter of a policy or guideline to advance their own ends, and such people are not at all interested in the spirit (which they would generally find inconvenient). I suspect if you tried to do this, the efforts would get bogged down in such extensive wikilawyering (as different people tried to insure that the spirit of the law didn't preclude their own self-interests) that it would (pardon the metaphor) burn out the clutch before you even got the darned thing in gear. --Ludwigs2 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::Yes. In fact I think that most policies for which the reason for them isn't blindingly obvious are already explained in this way. In fact we don't really have many policies, we have pages with "policy" tags at the top, which waffle on about the few underlying policies that exist, and describe detailed bureaucratic processes. The actually useful information - about writing encyclopedia articles - is usually on guideline pages, and there the motivation is often just that a matter has to be settled one way or another, for the sake of consistency and of not arguing about it again every single time it comes up. I'd reduce policy to just one page - literally - and I'd replace ArbCom with a body of people with the competence to resolve the disputes that matter - over content. (Any case of the sort that currently goes to ArbCom should have been solved ages ago with an admin banging a couple of heads together.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::Kotniski nailed what I have been trying to get across right on the head. Things have become too wrapped around solving our social problems and creating bureucratic processes to solve issues, as if once we solve those issues editing and encyclopedic content will fill in itself faster. Yes, I will keep saying this is only an encyclopedia because it is. Tell me what other function Wikipedia was meant to have? It was not created as "an effort to bring people together as a community and create a new online society through the mechanism of all working on a common goal, which happens to be an encyclopedia". This is an effort to create an encyclopedia by individuals. Yes, individuals who (depending on personality) may or may not need to work together. That is their individual choice. Oh, and I'm hoping the editor who called my degree theoretical was referring to my education being in theory and no that the degree itself is theoretical is in not existing. I extend good faith on your part and will assume it was just my poor skimming of your post.Camelbinky (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::: no one is saying Wikipedia was designed to be a community - this isn't facebook. however, the fact that it exists creates a community, unavoidably. If I got 100 people together in an office building and told them to write an encyclopedia, they would write the encyclopedia, but they would also make friends and enemies, compete for awards, have affairs, get in arguments over the coffee machine, take each other out to dinner, make company policies about using office supplies, torment new employees, set up divisions, make bosses and managers, and all the other things that communities do. Wikipedia is no exception.

::::::: Please read my post above about the limitations of your political perspective. --Ludwigs2 01:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::That's all true (though most of it happens without rules). However, imagine you (as the boss, who wants a good encyclopedia produced) discover that these 100 people are spending x% of their time arguing not about how to make the encyclopedia better, but about each other's behaviour and the coffee machine and the supplies and so on. If x were too large, you'd want to find ways to reduce it to a more reasonable level. It's being assserted here that Wikipedia currently has too high a value of x. --Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::The thing is, Wikipedia doesn't have "too high of a value of X". There are literally millions of registered user names, but there are hardly more then ~1000 who are really active at any one time. I'd guess that there are fewer then 100 who are actually regularly active in the community (defined as non-article talk space, such as this one). Aside from that though, we generally all stick to the topic at hand. There is no "off topic" forum here, which is a staple of many online communities, and I'm certainly not advocating that we start one. We're discussing the encyclopedia right now, in that we're ultimately talking about working together on it. A corollary issue has to do with the fact that those few of us who are here in the community are smeared out all over the dang place. There's a good reason to have the different forums (forii? I've always wondered about that), but it should be easier to get "the big picture", which is nearly impossible right now without trolling around for days on end.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::well, in the real world, if a boss notices that the social stuff is getting in the way of productivity (which is one of the reasons why communities create bosses in the first place) he will make rules to prohibit employees from doing the most egregious things, set goals and deadlines to force people to work harder, and eventually start putting up horrifying posters of kittens and puppies with "You Can Do It!" type slogans. I had a friend who worked in a worker-owned cooperative grocery store (a bit closer to the wikipedia business model) - because they needed everyone's involvement to make business decisions, they built a whole system specifically to deal with workers who disrupted meetings, had emotional issues, or failed to participate. they were fairly pleasant about it - first step in the process was lunch (on the company) with a volunteer coworker who would try to figure out what was going on - but bad behavior just wasn't allowed to continue. --Ludwigs2 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Camelbinky, that was my intent: your experience has been theoretical (ie. purely academic) vs. real-world, hands-on experience. Not implying you had a fake degree! Glad you were willing to AGF, and I apologize for being unclear on that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the Editors of Wikipedia be asked to stop going off the deep end by censoring out every little thing and adding "Citation needed" to every little statement. And in my opinion it really is getting ridiculous and they are going off the deep end. A perfect example is an article I just saw regarding the Model T Ford. There is data concerning how much a Model T would cost in todays dollars, and predictably enough, there is a big huge CITATION NEEDED note added which distracts one from easily reading the article and interrupts the flow of the paragraph. It is NOT necessary to add a citation there, this sort of data is READILY available and is something more-or-less "set in stone," or in other words, something which does NOT require a citation. This is just one of hundreds of examples. There are also many times when an article may TECHNICALLY be better in its original form after someone has changed it - - - but that does not mean that it is NECESSARY to revert it back to its first state. A normal, human level of flexibility is to be expected from the editors and I'm sorry, but in my experience that has been sorely lacking.

I UNDERSTAND the necessity for an increased level of editing. As just about everyone on the planet who's paying any kind of attention at all is aware, Wikipedia was getting a reputation for being "inaccurate" and not for not being a trustworthy reference source, for example for school research papers. Clearly something had to be done. But that gives no justification for swinging off wildly to the other end, and allowing (or encouraging by ommission) the editing of every little change JUST to feed the ego of some editor "who has nothing better to do."

Wikipedia's reputation, I feel, is changing now, to become something which "no one in their right mind" would want to contribute too, for fear of having their well-meant contributions ignored. You are going to be losing a LOT of good contributors this way, by ANNOYING them. Stop over-ruling every damn little change that well-meaning people are contributing - or you are going to have far fewer well-meant contributions. And stop adding "CITATION NEEDED" to EVERY damn little detail. It distracts from one's flow of thought and it is NOT necessary to cite every little detail that happens to be mentioned, most especially when that data is readily available elsewhere (including on Wikipedia) and when a reference would not be required at that point even using the most rigorous academic standards. It really does get silly after a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:welcome to the human race. please grab a plate and make yourself comfortable.

:citations are necessary on wikipedia to assure that information is accurate and not merely some well-intentioned editor's efforts at speaking the truth. sometimes editors get a bit pissy and tag things for citation that don't really need citations - If you discuss it on the talk page they will understand the error. Sometimes you've made an error, and you need to substantiate something that you (originally) thought was obvious. Sometimes everyone screws up, and the whole thing breaks down into a bloody, ugly mess (unlikely on Model T, but you never know). be patient, ask for clarification, add citations where you can or explain why you can't when you can't, and generally keep in mind that the other editor isn't trying to make your life miserable, but just wants to make sure that the encyclopedia is accurate. It's a thankless task, yes, but you should really applaud those brave souls who make their grumpy, pedantic way through wikipedia making sure that everything is validated. they do more to make a good encyclopedia than just about anyone I know. --Ludwigs2 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

::If the data is readily available then there should be no reason why you cannot fix the problem by providing a citation. As it is there are entirely unsupported assertions in the article, and it is reasonable for us to mark these as needing justification in terms of citation. It is ugly and annoying, but so are unsupported assertions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Putting {{cn}} is actually being rather courteous about it; an editor would be justified in just removing the statement entirely if they felt like it. {{cn}} is just a way of suggesting the article could be improved by finding a citation for the statement. Also, remember that editors usually aren't subject-matter experts, so citations are emphasized more on Wikipedia than they might be elsewhere; thus the "citation needed" tag indicates to the reader that the sentence should be taken with an extra grain of salt. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:I find it odd that people talk about WP being "inaccurate for research papers" as if other encyclopedias ARE. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• You know, the other reason for citations is to provide a bibliography for more in depth information. Citation requests are not only made because someone disputes the information. I've seen literally tons of what I like to call "courtesy citations" in all sorts of articles. There a great thing to make available.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

::I personally havent seen a problem with too many "citation needed" templates on an article. However I have seen at GA and FA nominations the request by a well-meaning editor that "every single sentence must have a citation"; unfortunately requests like that have forced many of us (myself including) to say "ok, well I'd rather fail a FA than debase the article"; and its editors of a much better caliber than I who are making that sacrifice of not getting the FA simply to show that some of these reviewers have insane ideas (and thats not the only insane idea I've seen put out at FL and FA, or even just GA). Not everything needs a citation, unfortunately some out there refuse to acknowledge that common sense exists and therefore have lost the ability to use it themselves. I dont need a source to tell you that New York (the state or the city) is in the United States; it really truly is a given, or a source to tell you that it is a legally incorporated city. However, you probably do need a source to show that Madrid, Spain is in fact legally a village and is not (as of my visit in 1997, doubt its changed in 13 years) and has never recieved a city charter.

• And Melodia, ALL encyclopedias are not acceptable for any research paper at either of the universities I've attended (SUNY Albany and Mizzou), it has nothing to do with accuracy, Einstein once wrote an article on physics for an encyclopedia, I assume it was quite accurate (and probably still is); the problem is that it is an encyclopedia. You dont use such a tertiary source for a paper, only primary or if you must secondary sources please, as I must mention in those classes I TA. Being allowed for a paper and being reliable are too separate issues. Encyclopedias are reliable and great works; Wikipedia isnt quite there yet. Wikipedia is not and never will be a source for a college paper, but hopefully it will be a good place to FIND sources you can use in a paper (as I've quietly told classes with the caveat that they dont tell the professor as most dont want to hear the word Wikipedia).Camelbinky (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• You really have trouble comprehending what I write don't you? I was saying just that, that they aren't acceptable as sources for papers. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The volunteers at WP:ABUSE are requesting feedback from the community on the first proposal of our 2009 revamping project. This is a proposed guideline that outlines the rationale, purpose, and scope of the project and defines some parameters for its functionality. We invite all to participate on the talk page. I look forward to seeing some great constructive input. Thanks!   Thorncrag  08:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:I believe this project has the potential to reduce long term serious abuse on Wikipedia if it is operated properly. However, abuse response cannot function without the input of the community. It is simply impossible due to the nature of the work done there. Once again, I am imploring the community to at least respond to the proposals that have been made. It doesn't matter what you think of abuse response, but please give your input. Netalarmhappy holidays! 03:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::Based on what little I have seen of the project, it could really use some adult supervision. This is not meant as an insult to those involved, but there seems to be a certain mindset which suggests to me that there is an overabundance of teenage males and a lack of moderating influences. The echo-chamber effect may lead the project to repeat such mistakes as contacting the FBI about Wikipedia vandalism. The language used in the proposals is somewhat suggestive of television depictions of police procedure, when it really ought to be as dispassionate as possible. Seeing vandals as the enemy only sets up a win-lose paradigm which can never be constructive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::I've never seen WP:ABUSE prior to a brief look just now, and I've got to say that I generally agree with Delicious carbuncle take on this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I think the above comments may be premature (although for some other related projects the point is valid). The "Who is contacted" section makes it clear that only the ISP (or university or similar) is to be contacted (the WHOIS contact). I have added a positive comment here and invite anyone else to join in (I think that was the intention). Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

::::@Delicious, I definitely take your concerns very seriously, we have been following the concerns regarding that situation. One of the primary motivations for developing a single guideline for the project was to address those concerns that you have raised. Without taking a position on that issue, I can say that we are trying to take steps to outline what should be done, and perhaps more importantly, what should NOT be done. I think that you might agree with several of the steps we have taken, such as requiring using an approved email--which, while it may not be perfect, is better than what I have seen in the past, and that these steps are in the right direction.   Thorncrag  01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::I agree with the "Who is contacted section" at Wikipedia:Abuse_response/2009_Revamp/Proposal_1#What_Abuse_Response_is_not for the most part; parents should absolutely never be contacted directly, and ditto for law enforcement in most situations. For that matter, I say even AN/I is the wrong place; admins are just Wikipedians with a few extra buttons. Contacting the government is a job for the foundation, and nothing less than the foundation. There should be clear instructions provided for how to bring threats of violence and WP:Threats of suicide to the attention of the foundation in the volunteer manual. Since the Better Business Bureau is no more than a neutral mediator who passes on complaints to the ROs, my opinion slightly differs with that, although if that's ever done, then it should only be done as a last resort. I also think five blocks is a little to long to wait; perhaps three or four would be better. Just my two cents. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I've read through this, and agree 110% with {{user|Delicious carbuncle}} – for once. Self-appointed "co-ordinators" alongside "listed investigators" etc. doesn't inspire confidence that this project is quite as professional as it frequently professes (pun fully intended) to be. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:I'd like to make it clear that the "self appointment as coordinators" was never intended to give anyone any leverage over other participants in the project. Please understand that at the time this revamp was started, there were very few (1~2) people that had processed anything in months. Furthermore, questions being asked, reports, and other issues that needed attention were not addressed by those that were active. Fearing that potential participants and reporters were not joining because of a lack of response, the coordinator label was created in case someone had any questions about the project. However, this is issue should be addressed if consensus allows this self nomination form to be used. Using that form, everyone would have input on the selection of investigators and such. Thanks for your input! Netalarmwelcome to 2010! 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not read the proposal the way Delecious Carbuncle and Ohm's Law do, but I must admit to being male and a few months shy of 18, which apparently places me in an implicitly less effective user group. My key concern is that the current proposal is somewhat overcomplicated and could result in less transparency, which I believe may contribute to Delicious Carbuncle and Ohm's Law's concerns. I have commented to this effect, and I would appreciate comments with your thoughts on the matter at the proposal. The Real Jean-Luc ^Talk/_Contribs 05:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

:Being a teenage male does not make you implicitly less effective, it merely makes you likely to be more effective in some areas than others. You would probably be great at "fighting vandals", but that is exactly what abuse reporting should not be about. My comment wasn't meant to be insulting although I understand why you may read it that way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::DC, you do raise some excellent points that I feel we have at least started to address in this proposal. The only thing that I would ask is that we focus on the proposals, not any past interactions that folks might have had with other folks. Suggestions to improve the proposal that may be derived from those interactions however would be most helpful.   Thorncrag  19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I don't believe that anyone here is focusing on or even mentioning past interactions. I've tried to highlight what I believe is a fundamental problem with WR:AR that procedural changes can do little to address. At the risk of being taken facetiously, here is my suggestion - ask editors wishing to join the project (and those already in the project) if they are there to fight vandals. If they answer affirmatively, it isn't the right project for them. Just my opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

::::At the risk of appearing to pile on, I just wanted to say once again that I agree with DC here. Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to make value judgments of the editors involved here, it's just that the sort of situation that "abuse response" appears to be attempting to address really takes much more tack and... well, maturity; compared to what is needed for the "vandal fighting" oriented tasks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw a while ago that {{User|Miesianiacal}} apparently has his own preferred citation formatting style, where he wraps tags with tags, to produce uniform line spacing. See this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines_constitutional_referendum,_2009&oldid=328979918 example] article. I happen to applaud the desired goal of uniform line spacing, but I don't like this way of doing it as the numbers are barely readable. But more importantly, this method is not mentioned in Wikipedia:Footnotes as an acceptable style variation. We discussed it a while ago, and he said that the issue in the past has always dissipated without resolution, and I left it. But having bumped into it again at another article, I thought I'd carry through my own suggestion of a discussion on VP this time. I honestly don't think it is too creepy to expect a practice like this to either be explicitly allowed or disallowed in our style guidance, and therefore there should be a proper consensus determined on it either way. What do others think? Ideally there should be a way of having normal size numbers and uniform spacing, but I have no clue where to even raise that request, so suggestions on a postcard for that too. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I think could use more NPOV perspectives. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", Comment, Suggestion, or otherwise. You can find the discussion here. I hope I placed this request in the appropriate place, cheers!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So there are some cases where User: links appear in the main space that they may be acceptable. Here are some examples I've seen from my report:

Just to let people know, there is a proposal about WP:DE, specifically regarding "disruptive cite-tagging". Your comments would be most welcome here. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A really enjoyable photo currently greets visitors to Vomiting. Despite several people explaining at great deal that it simply provides no encyclopedic value to place it there, a single editor feels it is "censorship" to remove it. I have a pretty good idea what the end result will be, and wanted to get the opinion of more editors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The FFD for :File:Ronald alexander wikipedia.jpg has made me wonder: is there a way to ensure that a file is available under a certain license at the time of upload if it's taken from a website that grants such a license? At the present time (as far as I know), an image can properly be taken from a webpage that had a statement releasing the image under a free license, but if the webpage goes down, we've lost our evidence for the free license. How could this be done: with OTRS? Let's say that I find such a webpage; I'd rather not bother the operator with a request for OTRS when the image is already shown as freely licensed. If there's already a system in existence to demonstrate permanently what licenses are issued for images like this, please point me to it. If not, I'd like to see something created that's similar to the Flickrreview process on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To address several concerns that have been raised from time to time concerning the participation of younger people on Wikipedia, I have posted an essay (and potentially guideline at some point) captioned Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

{{lw|Non-free content review}} has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:OrangeDog#File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg.