Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Wiki articles on YouTube

Someone called WikiPlays on YouTube (and also WikiPlays.org) has uploaded 40,000 videos on YouTube, between August and now, made from English Wikipedia articles with speech synthesis and a slideshow of images from the article. Most are new and have zero views. The most popular is Britney Spears with 47,000 views since August 30. --LA2 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

47,001 now. That's much better text-to-voice than the screen reader that came with my laptop. Is that anyone else's experience? If that's the case for most readers/listeners, perhaps we should be linking to these Youtube files from their articles. Do we have an accessibility project? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This is farily similar to Qwiki's attempt to monetize Wiki content.Smallman12q (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Except that the YouTube videos are free, since they fall under the same license as the content being read in them. While someone could compile and sell them, they couldn't do anything if someone else put them online for free. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The who and why remain a mystery. YouTube runs ads, but does it share the ad revenue with the uploader? Perhaps the uploader can later insert ads in the video and make some money that way? --LA2 (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

For very popular videos, Youtube pays a share of the revenue. It may not have been done for revenue, but simply to share knowledge. Apteva (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows commercial use. Since the videos are derivatives, they must be released by the same CC BY-SA licence or a compatible one. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the videos seem to include the hyperlink and CC BY-SA licence, so the project seems fine to me. Actually, it's great! --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Real Media showing up on anti-tracking software for Wikipedia

Hello:

A simple question -- why is Real Media consistently showing up on the list of blocked tracking companies for the Wikipedia site?

I am using "Do Not Track Plus" in Firefox and it seems to be blocking real media on most wikipedia pages I've visited, including this one.

Thanks D. Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.13.186 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find the "list of blocked tracking companies for the Wikipedia site"? --Malyacko (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have the add-on called "Do not track plus" (from the mozilla website) loaded it adds a small button to the upper right of the address toolbar. Pressing the button gives a list of the blocked tracking sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.13.186 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

When I first posted this Real Media was showing up on nearly all the wikipedia pages but now it seems to be on fewer articles. Unless I misunderstand how this works I don't think any company should be monitoring wikipedia.

This doesn't sound like something we'd be doing deliberately! A couple of quick questions:

a) Has this only appeared recently - say, within the last month?

b) Do you get similarly unexpected RealMedia warnings on a large number of unrelated websites?

I have a suspicion as to what it might be linked to, but I think we'll need more information to track it down. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't expect any tracking on wikipedia which is why it was so noticeable as it was originally showing up on nearly every article. Now it does not, at least on the front-page articles that I checked. Real Media is still showing up on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_%28album%29 as I type this. I wouldn't expect any wiki-contributor to do this intentionally of course but was surprised to see any tracking. To answer point "A" I had only recently loaded the blocking software so I only noticed it a couple days before the first post here. For "B" I haven't noticed any other out-of-place tracking and I have been curious enough to check. Thanks D Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.13.186 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if it's related to the Ogg sound file on that page? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Memes in Wikipedia

I have realised that Wikipedia (many languages) is being used to spread a meme. As far as I understand the idea of Wikipedia it wasn't created to spread memes. The meme has been removed from English and German Wikipedias but it's almost impossible to oppose tens of funny editors creating articles in tens of languages. Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the notability of the meme. We have Category:Memes with a large subcat Category:Internet memes. meta:Title blacklist may be an option to stop cross-wiki abuse to promote a non-notable meme. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Polandball was deleted in April and September and de:Polandball was deleted in April.Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball resulted in delete but had many keeps from serious editors. "Polandball" has 47,200 Google hits so this doesn't look like the type of WP:MADEUP stuff the inventor sometimes uses Wikipedia to spread. Other Wikipedias may choose to keep such an article. It doesn't seem to belong on the global blacklist. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

advertizing on Wikipedia

Over this past year there have been 2 fund raising dives for Wikipedia, most recently last week, attempting to raise funds to keep advertizing off the site. I have made an effort to respond to each fund raising campain - as someone who uses the site 3-4 times a week, I feel it is the least I can do. I was truely disapointed when today, November 23, 2012, I looked up a subject only to find advertizements in the results.

I understand Wikimedia is a business with expences and employees - and I applaud their efferts to remain free of advertisments - I am disapointed that we the user community could not step up in their time of need and provide the required capital to keep the pages clean. I hope that in the future if the donations make it possible that the powers that be will remove the advertizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.93.79 (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

More than likely, the advertisements you saw were the result of adware or the like, or you possibly weren't at Wikipedia proper. You are not the first to be affected, but Wikipedia itself does not have advertisements. Chris857 (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

See here for more details. These are browser plugins that activate on unrelated sites; some seem to target Wikipedia specifically. There seems to have been a fresh outbreak of them over the past week or so; I've seen many more comments than usual. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also possible that the IP got caught up in fundraising testing... Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:RFAQ#ADS. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Feedback tool (again)

As I have expressed before, I am not a fan of our Article Feedback tool. I think it’s an unnecessary alternative to talk pages that does nothing to bring about improvement to the project. That said, if we’re going to have it, our registered users ought to know how to deal with it. I became a bit concerned earlier when I noticed that this comment from the article Barack Obama:

I would like to see the section about Barack Obama's personal life expanded a bit more -- as well as learn more about his family.

had been flagged as "abuse" by no less than five of our registered users. I could be wrong, but I personally don’t see even the faintest hint of anything that could reasonably be called "abuse" in that comment. Do we have a policy or guideline for what constitutes "abuse" of the feedback tool? If so, could anyone elaborate on how this particular comment meets the criteria? This is just one example of many I could have cited. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The "feedback" tool is a morass of worthlessness that was foisted upon Wikipedia to make it more like Facebook and other blog sites with "comments" sections. It was a misguided attempt to remove idle chatter from the article talk pages and as a result we now get a second place we need to keep track of (which doesn't show up on watch lists normally) to see what changes people would like to see in articles. Ideally, things like this should be openly discussed on the article's Talk: page, but it isn't. It's a shame, because there's lots of good stuff that probably gets missed on the feedback tool if only because it is largely redundant to talk pages, and inexperienced readers don't know the distinction between the two. Hell, I'm a very experienced editor and I'm not always clear on the distinction between them. It seems like one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" things that has turned into something which (in my singular opinion) doesn't actually provide any net benefit to Wikipedia in terms of helping improve article content.</rant> --Jayron32 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on your conclusions about the quality of the tool (I don't know really since I haven't personally used or reviewed it), I can say that your bad faith accusations about the purpose of it land very wide from the mark. "to make it more like Facebook" is not a goal that anyone has ever articulated anywhere, as far as I know, and certainly in discussions I've had with staff and community about this, there is no one who has regarded that as a valid goal. Why would it be? Nor was it a "misguided attempt to remove idle chatter from the article talk pages". Anyway, to get to the substance of your critique, I think your points are largely valid, but they are not related to your misunderstandings about the goal of the tool!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, I never said anything about bad faith, I have no doubt that the tool was installed with the intent of, in the mind those that make these decisions, improving Wikipedia. I think that, whatever the actual justification is for its existence or purpose, it is poorly executed and of marginal utility towards improving the articles. Feedback for article content should be posted to article talk pages, where said feedback can be read and acted upon in improving the article. We have a means for readers to provide feedback for articles, so I am simply left to guess as to what the Article Feedback Tool's raison d'etre is. If it isn't obvious what use it has, then perhaps it isn't all that useful for the end goal of Wikipedia in the first place. Again, no accusations of bad faith, so I'm not sure how you read that into my comments, just bad execution. --Jayron32 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with your position entirely, I just want to make it clear that my present concern is with how the tool is being utilized, and not with the tool itself. I would rather it not exist, but if it's going to exist, Id like it to be used properly. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think AFTv5 was a good idea and a bad implementation. David1217 ^{What I've done} 03:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This comment:

A timeline would be great

has now been flagged by five users. The comment I mentioned previously is up to six. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the single most helpful feedback comment I have ever seen:

The wikipedia on Stanley Ann Durham states that she moved to Indonesia in 1975. It states Dunham completed her coursework at the University of Hawaii for a M.A. in anthropology in December 1974, and after having spent three years in Hawaii, Dunham, accompanied by her daughter Maya, returned to Indonesia in 1975 to do anthropological field work. The wikipedia for Barak Obama states "Obama's mother returned to Hawaii in 1972, remaining there until 1977 when she went back to Indonesia to work as an anthropological field worker. " Stanley Ann Durham was in Indonesia in 1976 to 1994, except in May-Nov, 1986 and Aug-Nov, 1987. Please fix this discrepancy.

has been flagged four times. Am I seriously the only one concerned about this? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi talk:Evanh2008, thanks for bringing up the issue related to the 'Flag as abuse' feature. We are now adjusting the moderation tools to avoid these types of issues, so your observations are very helpful and timely. I also would like to clarify our primary objective for Article Feedback v5, to expand on Jimbo's thoughtful clarifications. Our main goal for this new editor engagement tool is to encourage more participation from readers -- by giving them a voice, then inviting them to sign up as registered users, and ultimately new editors. In our experience, most readers do not participate on talk pages, which are generally found confusing by new users. Hence the need for a simpler on-ramp to engage readers to participate on Wikipedia, which is one of the five priorities in our movement's strategic plan. Our research so far suggests that article feedback addresses that need effectively. We are now focusing our attention on making the moderation tools more effective as well, and surfacing good feedback while reducing the editor workload for this new user engagement tool. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth to also paste this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_feedback where it's more likely to be seen by AFT developers. --Malyacko (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We can see it here :). We really need to do some research into whether anonymous moderation lines up with what registered users consider useful - this is on my to-do list. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked the Obama post you mentioned above, and it seems clear that it was only flagged as abuse by anonymous ip numbers. That's not helpful, of course. But neither is it true to say that "registered users" are doing this. (If they were, we could tell them to knock it off.) I think what would be helpful here would be to figure out why people are doing this, and how to encourage them to do something more useful. For example, if you flag something as abuse, should you be required to give a reason *why* you think it is abuse?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

On the "personal life expanded a bit more" comment, I see that no registered editors flagged it as abuse, but 2 marked it as unhelpful; MathewTownsend and AConservapediaEditor (a blocked sock). On the "timeline" one, the unhelpful flags are from JayJasper and the only abuse flag is today from Johnbod, which I presume was a mistaken attempt to list the abuse flags, something I almost clicked on. This is a very ugly and clunky interface; if somewhere on the Internets there's a flip-side of Clients From Hell to post up bad implementations, this would be a good submission. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, sorry for the confusion. I was under the impression that only registered users could flag comments. In that case, I’m not sure I can say a lot on the topic that would be helpful, given my opposition to both anonymous editing and the existence of the feedback tool. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to view Feedback Activity Log for specific IP user? I tried but it's not working.--В и к и T 18:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmn; I'll poke the dev :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, Wikiwind! I just filed this bug to address this issue. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will say that this tool is absolutely useless for tween/teen oriented pop-culture articles. It's used much like Wikia article comments — expressing what they think should happen on a particular Nick/Disney show, or even trying to talk to the stars (like Justin Bieber or Selena Gomez) themselves. – Confession0791 ^talk 23:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Confession0791, thanks for your valid point. We have also observed that reader feedback is less useful on high-traffic, controversial pages than on low-traffic pages. To address this issue, we now provide a feature that lets administrators restrict feedback from certain user groups on controversial pages, by extending the page protection feature available on semi-protected and protected pages. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All these meta-feedback mechanisms ("mark as helpful", "mark as unhelpful" and "flag as abuse") are quite chaotically employed in general. My experience is that most of the chaos comes from anon users who are just as clueless in using these features as in using the whole tool in general. We also get the opposite thing – the tool will let people mark even their own comments as "helpful", so we often end up with blatantly vandalistic comments that allegedly "100% found helpful". As others have noted, other false markings can occur through mistaken attempts at fixing things. This has happened to me before: there appears to be some way of de-flagging an abusively flagged, good comment (at least I've seen such entries in logs); while searching for a way of doing just that, it has happened to me that I inadvertently added another "abuse" flag to a perfectly good comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Future Perfect, it should no longer be possible to mark your own comment as helpful. Please let us know if you encounter this issue again and we'll file a bug for it. See my other response below on how to unflag comments. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How exactly does one de-flag a comment? If I figured that out I could, of course, take care of it myself without bugging everyone about it here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I still have no idea how it's done. I only think it's possible because I'm pretty sure I've seen log entries in the activity history of some comments implying that abuse flags were removed. Never could figure out how to do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Future Perfect, thanks for your thoughtful comments! There are two ways that you can un-flag a comment: 1) if you flagged the comment yourself, simply click on the same link again, and that will unflag it; and 2) if you are looking to clear all flags from other users, you can click on 'Feature this post', which will unflag them all (you can then 'unfeature this post' if you don't think it should be featured). This is a temporary solution while we finalize our moderation tools. Stay tuned for more ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review

I just open this page (not because I wanted to add myself, but for another reason) and noticed that most of the transcluded pages do not get any reviews at all. Actually, most of those who got, I could recognize the names, so that I assume people are willing to review users who are visible at the general noticeboards and are not willing to review anybody they do not know. I know a review is an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, especially a review of someone one never heard about, but still I think it is a community service. If we can not provide timely reviews as community, may be we should shut up the Editor review page, or pin a notice that a review has only a tiny chance to go through, or smth. I do not have any good solution, and this is why I am posting this on this village pamp (admittedly the least active one), but may we could treat the absence of reviews similarly how we treat backlogs, or may be someone else has better solutions.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Stacking navboxes (sidebars)

Can someone point me to good readings about "stacking sidebars"? Navboxes as a footer are easy, but sidebars are a topic. Prevalence? Presence? -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of Anti-Christian propaganda on the Romanian Wikipedia

User:Michael2012ro, who is also active upon the English Wikipedia, says that all instances of historical-critical information about Jesus and Christianity means using Wikipedia for spreading Anti-Christian propaganda. He says that the information which I have translated from Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus upon ro:Isus cel istoric confuses his mind and that it constitutes Anti-Christian propaganda, violating thus WP:NPOV. Consider how many good-faith, competent and experienced editors he has offended by saying this (just look at the history of the two articles). He considers Bart D. Ehrman and Michael Coogan as two Anti-Christian historians expressing fringe views about the Bible and Christian history. He said that since the majority of Romanians are Christians, Wikipedia should render their views as mainstream.

But Michael2012ro is certainly no mainstream Christian, so it is kind of weird for him to play the "Wikipedia should be a democracy" card. The first symptom of this matter was reported at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_136#Mantak Chia on human sexuality (medicine), since Michael2012ro has claimed that Mantak Chia's views stand on equal footing with a medical advice from National Health Service and with peer-reviewed medical studies. The NHS said in a leaflet aimed at teenagers that "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away" and Michael2012ro sought to counteract this medical fact with Mantak's views about the loss of qi during ejaculation, in spite of being told that it is expressly prohibited by WP:RSMED. Michael2012ro has even said that in a few years the MDs who gave the advice or at least the NHS will change their minds about their advice and that they will embrace alternative medical viewpoints. Of course, I have reported him on ro:Wikipedia:Reclamații but no measure has been taken in respect to his behavior, except some lambasting comment about masturbation made by ro:user:Asybaris01. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm Christian, and I generally support the use of Ehrman. However, the English Wikipedia only has jurisdiction over the English Wikipedia. You may want to point out to the other, assumably more reasonable reasonable editors over there that the Historicity of Jesus article and Historical Jesus article are monitored and edited by Christians, as if Michael2012ro's religious bias was really a reason to exclude sources from the article. May I ask which portions you translated? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have translated Historicity of Jesus#Greco-Roman sources, Historicity of Jesus#Jesus as myth, Historical Jesus#Scholarly methods and Historical Jesus#Theories of the historical Jesus. The translations are not so new, they were harbored for a long time under ro:Isus din Nazaret. The precise versions which were translated are shown upon ro:Discuție:Isus cel istoric. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Or, more precisely, I have translated Historicity of Jesus#Non-Christian sources, not just Greco-Roman sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I assume that, as you speak Romanian as your native tongue, the translation is accurate, and that the views of the authors cited in those sections are represented as their views and not some cosmic truth; and that what those sections describe as mainstream academic views are described as such. I can only find in your favor, for what little my opinion is worth. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have translated what was written there, I have not changed its meaning. Even when I personally disagreed with some of the points being made, I have considered that I should keep the whole variety of scholarly views, so I have not censored what I was translating. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I had no evidence that was not the case, so that's what I assumed. The only thing I can think of would be to start discussion at the talk pages for the en.wikipedia versions of those articles, and invite Michael2012ro to those discussions. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lina Medina.jpg

It's such a low quality image. Can we get an OTRS for this image, then digitally enhance it? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Defining articles that have a beginning and an end to them?

I realize that some article topics are ongoing: the Arab–Israeli conflict will probably continue as long as there are Arabs and Israelis. And, for that matter, many other articles are ongoing by their nature: place articles (New York City), astronomy (new observations, etc.). And that is fine with me.

And many articles have a clear ending. For example, the disappearance of Judge Crater, The American Civil War, the Trial of Lizzie Borden. Granted, someone might turn up a new fact, but they would have had to occur during Judge Crater's lifetime or that of his surviving attacker (if any). Or archaelogy or a new letter about the Civil War - all developed in that time frame.

The third category is articles without limit. I won't give a real observation for fear of canvassing. Let's say I choose the Lewinsky scandal and select someone otherwise reliable, who wishes to comment on this really out-of-date event now. Let's say the Pope or Billy Graham or somebody throws out a very public comment about this and it is published. While there is nothing "new" in the comment, the source is new. Is publication required? For me, the issue is closed unless the comment is original, which is quite unlikely at this late date.

What if the comment comes from a reliable source who is "reliable" but not anywhere near that notable? Shouldn't it be original? Can articles with an otherwise "closed" sets of dates go on "forever?"

And is there any policy that addresses this? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. Each article reflects (or ought to) reflect the current state of knowledge about a topic. New things might come up, be they archeological finds, new theories suggested by papers or books, or commentary or "impact"-type things. These all need to be brought into the fold, but clearly we don't know what's going to happen in the future. "or me, the issue is closed unless the comment is original, which is quite unlikely at this late date." Well, I think I see your point. Our understanding of certain things, such as the US presidential election, 1980 are unlikely to change. Some change on a frequent basis. But these are all on a scale, there are no "closed" articles that we split off, although we do for convenience to the reader have {{current}} for rapidly updated articles. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln is one of the people who has been most written about in all of history and there are still new items and new perspectives and new interpretations coming out all the time. i dont think there can be anything that can be considered "fully and completely covered for all time - subject closed". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

however, that is not to imply that i would not be in favor of being able to take articles of living people of marginal notability and lock them from open editing to prevent egregious BLP content from sneaking in unawares and remaining for years without being addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

use of language templates within articles?

Is it proper use of the language templates to use them within List of United States cable and satellite television networks to identify what language the stations broadcast in? i thought it was for sources only. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Export value of dilithium crystals highly exaggerated

I just discovered that the Economy of Belize article has claimed that one of the main exports of Belize is dilithium crystals for over a year! I can't imagine how many schoolchildren have reproduced this fascinating tidbit in their reports about Belize. One hopes the U.S. State Department hasn't reproduced it yet, but you never know! Kaldari (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actualy, it was Deliphium crystals. Amusing, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome message

Hello !

Can you welcome me with the appropriate template (like fr:Modèle:Bienvenue nouveau) on my talk page please?

Thank you. --Orikrin1998 (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Orikrin1998 (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is open

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. Users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote. The election will run from November 27 until December 10.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fan Mail

Upon first discovering the wwweb, the most natural human response is to begin work on building the wikipedia. I'm reminded of Lewis Thomas's, "Lives of a Cell". I'm writing because I want to Thank the creators and the minions for the most useful wwweb ideas ever manifest and for what will become the greatest legacy of our race. Thank You All. I donate every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdevuono (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks al lot for your encouraging and heart-warming message. Be assured of my gratitude! Bertux (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Ebernesia

Accusations have been made about Ebernesia's non-existence. Some believe that the country does not exist but others know that it is real. There is an established D.R.E. Constitution an government. Although it may not be officially recognized the country exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.208.190 (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The alleged country/micronation isn't notable so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I don't even get a Google hit, but if you set up a website then it still wouldn't belong in Wikipedia without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Need help dealing with bad faith editors at Drone attacks in Pakistan

I already started an RFC about this, and it's been open for over a week with 0 responses, not even the involved editors have bothered responding. All they do is revent and say, "please don't remove cited material," which, if you've been on Wikipedia for as long as I have, you've heard every POV warrior chant whenever they try to insert poorly sourced nonsense. I'm starting to think that the population of Wikipedia has gotten too low to prevent massive amounts of BS from getting through. No one's watching even highly relevant and current articles.

Anyway, the dispute is over whether or not a highly controversial conspiracy theory by an "unnamed official" in one source is worth a mention. Trivially violates WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:NOT#NEWS IMO.

I'm gonna go browse the RFC list, see if there aren't any other lunatics holding other articles hostage. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

==This is the US Ambassador to Ebernesia, Tyler Packerd. I am truly sorry to hear that you doubt the rule of Ebernesia. I feel as though you do not understand the conditions that have been set forward for this country. You have no right to deny Ebernesia's existence. and I am 98% sure that the President of the D.R.E. will not be pleased with your assumption after I inform him. Never again do I want to see your denial of the country we speak of. Packerd, USA out

Quick Help with a Survey

I wasn't exactly sure where to post this, and if you have a better suggestion please let me know. I'm looking for Wikipedia users for a study I'm doing and would like a moment of your time to take a survey, if you can spare it.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QXZ7P9J

Thanks so much. (Also, I'll make sure to clear this out within a few days.)

Kootron (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

They are looking for Wikipedia users, which outnumber editors by a huge margin, for a study titled "The Information Seeking Habits of Wikipedia Users". I would suggest taking out an ad on facebook to find survey participants. Apteva (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User options for IP users

Curious question: why don't IP users get user options (talk and contributions) at the top of the page like registered users? I've noticed that some other wikis show them. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 08:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 86#"My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors and bugzilla:36121. A talk link wasn't discussed but I think it would invite a lot of unwanted chatter, and many IP's would probably have unrealistic expectations about others reading what they write on their own IP talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, PrimeHunter! The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Recognising training

I deliver a lot of Wikipedia training, and someone who's asked me to deliver some sessions for them wants something to be given to trainees at the end of the session, saying that they've completed it. before I create my own certificate, or fork a template, do we have a welcome template or barnstar tailored for such purposes, or a PDF certificate that they can print off? I'm not looking for anything that accredits them, but I'd also be interested in hearing of any colleges or similar that give credits for learning to edit or editing Wikipedia, as part of something like a a basic computer literacy or life skills certificate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Why does Perpetrator redirect to Suspect? I scanned some dictionaries, which served only to increase my uneasyness. Not being a native English speaker nor a frequent user of the english Wikipedia, I hesitate to request speedy deletion, but I would very much prefer a red link over this misleading redirect. If you agree, please delete this juridical monster or – better still – add useful content if you can. Bertux (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's nasty. I'm a native speaker and I agree completely. However the article itself is actually okay. But it is badly titled. It should be called something like "Difference between Suspect and Perpetrator. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks a lot! - Bertux (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)