Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:11, 31 October 2003

Latest revision as of 19:18, 18 August 2016

Line 1:

{{pp-protected|reason=Persistent [[WP:Vandalism|vandalism]]|small=yes}}

<small>[[ar:&#1608;&#1575;&#1581;&#1577; &#1580;&#1575;&#1604;&#1610;&#1577;]]

{{historical}}

[[ca:HomePage/Discussió]]

The [[Wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]] was moved here 09:57, Sep 26, 2004 by Jamesday. The page history contains an archive of the village pump's history prior to that date. The page was moved here, and has been protected, to guard against page move [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]].

[[cy:Wicipedia:Y_Caffi]]

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

[[de:Wikipedia:Ich brauche Hilfe]]

[[es:Wikipedia:Café]]

[[fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro]]

[[ja:Wikipedia:&#20117;&#25144;&#31471;]]

[[nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg]]

[[simple:Simple Talk]]

[[sr:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0:%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B0]]

[[sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen]]

[[zh:Wikipedia:&#20114;&#21161;&#23458;&#26632;]]</small>

See '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&action=history Page history]'''.

----

'''[http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&action=edit&section=new Post a question now]''' if you don't want to wait for the whole page to be loaded. But consider skimming to see if your question was already asked. Also, '''do not''' push the "save page" button multiple times when posting this way! The server is overloaded but it will usally respond eventually and add your question to the page multiple times!

----

<font color=red>'''Quick reference on server status'''</font>

* '''The database server / web server for the other wikis ("pliny") is <font color=green>online</font>'''

** Motherboard and CPUs have been replaced (2003-10-14), which hopefully will eliminate the frequent crashes we've had

* '''The regular webserver for the English-language Wikipedia ("larousse") is <font color=green>online</font>'''.

** Back online 2003-10-14, running on older, slower processor temporarily

** Faster processors and memory are being tested now (2003-10-17) and should be put back in soon if all is well

* '''The new database monster <font color="red">has been ordered.</font>'''

** fund raising resulted in enough money to buy a new bigger and faster database server

** pliny and larousse will share the webserver load once the new box is online (about the end of October)

----

'''Related pages''': [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists|Mailing lists]] - [[Wikipedia:IRC channel|IRC]] - [[Wikipedia:Instant Messaging Wikipedians|IM a Wikipedian]] - [[Wikipedia:Talk page|Talk pages]] - [[Wikipedia talk:Software updates]]

<table align="right"><tr><td> [[Image:Village_pump_yellow.png]]</tr></td></table>

[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome, newcomers]] and baffled oldtimers! This is where Wikipedians raise and try to answer ''Wikipedia-related'' questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, and operation in our community. However:

* To raise a bug report, or suggest a feature, see [[wikipedia:bug reports|bug reports]].

* To request peer review of an article you've written, see [[Wikipedia:Peer review]]

* For remarks and questions on the contents of an article, use the "Discuss this page" link at that article to arrive at the corresponding Talk page.

* If you have other questions about anything else in the Universe or life, try [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]].

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

# Place your questions '''at the bottom''' of the list

#* Use '''[http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&action=edit&section=new this edit link] to directly add a new question to the bottom.

# '''Title''' the question (by typing == ''title'' ==)

#* If you use the edit link above, just enter a subject

# '''Sign''' your name and date (by typing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>)

See also: [[Wikipedia:FAQ]], [[Wikipedia:Help]], [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]]

== Moved discussion ==

Questions and answers, after a period of time of inactivity, will be moved to other relevant sections of the wikipedia (such as the FAQ pages), placed in the [[Wikipedia:Village pump archive]] (if it is of general interest), or deleted (if it has no long-term value).

*October 30

**National Park Service--> deleted, resolved

**Ancient pages hooray!-->every article has been edited since the software rewrite. Congratulations all.

**Using pics from Wikipedia-->[[Wikipedia talk:Copyrights]]

**[[Chip's Challenge]] --> deleted, fixed

**List of X topics-->Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of links)

**Cyrillic script--> [[Wikipedia:Village_pump/October_2003_archive_2|archive]]

**Wiki fast?--> deleted, no it isn't. :)

**Getty Images-->[[Talk:Getty Images]]

**more meaningful HTML titles for special pages-->[http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=829461&group_id=34373&atid=411195 sourceforge]

**We've lost another two -->

** Class (computer science) --> [[Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles]]

**BR code--> deleted, fixed.

**"Underline links" preference ignored --> deleted, fixed

**Question from a newcomer-->deleted, see [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]

**why did you put EDIT THIS PAGE on this site--> deleted, see [[wikipedia:replies]]

**Help needed in Hinduism--> see [[Talk:Hinduism]]

**4reference--> see [[talk:Lee-Enfield]]

**Attention--> please help with [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention|Pages needing attention]] and say what you did on [[Wikipedia:Recentchanges summary]]

**Main Page--> [[Talk:Main Page/Temp5]]

**Baha'i Faith--> [[m:Talk:Quest for gender-neutral pronouns|meta]]

**List of POV pages? -->[[Wikipedia:Village_pump/October_2003_archive_2|archive]]

**Removing personal attacks from talk pages-->Proposal for a new rule - see [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]]

**Two spaces after a period--> [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spaces after a period)]]

**Special:Whatlinkshere-->[[Wikipedia:Village_pump/October_2003_archive_2|archive]]

**Scissors (game)--> [[Talk:Scissors (game)]]

See the [[Wikipedia:Village pump archive|archive]] for older moved discussion links. For the most recent moved discussion, see [[Wikipedia:Village pump archive#October 2003 moved discussion]].

----

== Right-justified intros ==

The first line of an article is right-justified, which can look very strange if the line is short (e.g. [[Richard Brinsley Sheridan]]). It can be fixed by putting a blank line above the first line of text, but is there any way the developers can fix it more effectively? -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 10:50, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:The first line of an article is right-justified? Sounds like you've got a bit of browser weirdness going on. The first line, like every other line, looks left-justified to me. --[[User:Camembert|Camembert]]

::In that case I'd better say I'm using IE5 (I think I do on the other computer I use too). I've just got someone to have a look using IE6 and it's not a problem for them. This makes it a much more minor problem. Probably not worth wasting time on! -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 13:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:In a lot, but not all, of articles, I see the first line right-justified, too. I think it's rather unjustified of my browser to right-justify for no reason... [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']] 18:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::It only happens in articles in which the right-floated [edit] links appear. It's a known bug, which has been independently rediscovered many many times since those [edit] links were added. &mdash;[[User:Paul A|Paul A]] 10:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Report it at SourceForge (see [[wikipedia:bug reports]]), along with your browser, etc. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 18:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have this problem too, IE5.0 on Win98. I first raised it when section edit was introduced and I think they may be related. I looked at SourceForge and couldn't find an open problem record there, but that might well be my not knowing how to look. I'm happy to raise it there myself, please don't delete this from the pump until we do get a SourceForge record raised or identified. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 23:30, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

==Word and article searches==

Am I the only one who has trouble doing word and article searches? Often it seems I search a word or phrase, looking for an article, and I come up blank two or three times. But if I persist, sometimes I come up with an article. What's up with that? It's not so urgent when checking for existing articles on, say, [[Penis-melting Zionist robot combs]]. But on more common subjects it's a problem. Also, when are we going to have full search capabilities? [[User:Paul Klenk|Paul Klenk]] 01:45, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

== Colon in link in definition list ==

A colon in a link in a definition list doesn't work. Can the software be changed to chnage the priority so that a : within <nowiki>[[ ]]</nowiki> doesn't start the second half of the definition entry. This is a problem with any of Wikipedia:... or User:...

:This is a known bug, but no one cares enough to fix it, as definition lists are used slightly more often than never (though the colon is independently used for indentation, which happens to be implemented as definition-only definition lists). If you care enough to fix it, [http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/ please be our guest]. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]] 07:34, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:In the mean time, some adaptation of URL encoding might be useful: [[Wikipedia%3AVillage pump]] &mdash;[[User:Paul A|Paul A]] 01:40, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

== overlapping articles ==

I found [[General Government]] listed at Articles Needing Attention, so I rewrote it since it's a subject I know something about. Then I found [[History of Poland -- World War II 1939-1945]], which is just a collection of dot-points and could well be deleted. But in fact this is a better heading for an article about Poland during WW2 than is General Government. On the other hand, [[Poland under German occupation]] would be better still. My inclination is to create [[Poland under German occuption]], transfer and expand the text from [[General Government]], then list the two existing articles for deletion. Comments? [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 07:22, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: Keep it. General Government were one of the distinct administrative units of Poland the occupied by Germans. Polices used by Germans in [[GG]] were different then those on the areas annexed by [[Nazi Germany]] or on the areas occupied by Soviets. For example, in [[General Government]] public use of Polish language was not forbidden, while it was like this in [[Posen]]. In [[Warsaw]] public executions were advised policies, while it was not standard inside borders of Germany. [[User:GH|GH]] 07:41, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

:No need to list them for deletion - just make them redirects. The title may be more consistent with other history pages if it was [[History of Poland (1939-1945)]]. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 07:41, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

:You should also read [[Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page|How to rename a page]], if you haven't already. &mdash;[[User:Paul A|Paul A]] 10:31, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

==How do I put a French link to my English version and vice versa?==

In my "user page" : How do I mention the same page exists in both languages?

[[User:Papotine|Papotine]] 12:52, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:Add ''<nowiki>[[fr:Utilisateur:Papotine]]</nowiki>'' (or whatever you login name is in the French wiki) to your English user page. Conversely, ''<nowiki>[[en:User:Papotine]]</nowiki>'' to the French one... -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 13:48, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, Viajero !

[[User:Papotine|Papotine]] 14:36, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

==Why do get logged out?==

It seems that I just got logged out while working on a page. I edited a subpage in the user namespace as a logged-in user, but on saving it appeared under an IP number rather than my username. That looks potentially troublesome (after all, it makes a difference whether you edit your pages or someone with an IP number does). I should note that the problem has occurred before (rarely), and that I do not usually have similar problems on the particular computer I am working at. [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 19:17, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:Bug reports should be made at [[SourceForge]]. Please see [[wikipedia:bug reports]] for instructions on doing this. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 19:26, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Done. I seem to remember that similar weirdnesses were discussed here earlier (to do with the en/en2/www thing??) [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 19:48, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::How long had it been since you logged in? How long was it between when you opened the edit page and when you clicked save? Were you using the "remember password across sessions" feature? BTW you can change history, see [[Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit]]. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 01:49, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember how long I had been logged in. Time between opening edit and saving could have been ten minutes or so. I don't use the remember passwords feature. And that particular problem has occurred before, but only in the past weeks, so I assume it could have been because of the hardware difficulties or server overload (and wasn't there a similar discussion recently?). Thanks, [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 05:13, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

==Can't upload an image==

After the screen asking if I want to change the " " in the filename to "_", I get this message:

A database query syntax error has occurred. The last attempted database query was: "INSERT INTO image (img_name,img_size,img_timestamp,img_description,img_user,img_user_text) VALUES ('Keyboard_Layout_German.png',,'20031026192319','Keyboard layout, German, upload attempt #120, made by me', '7586', 'Cyp')" from within function "wfRecordUpload". MySQL returned error "1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax. Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ''20031026192319','Keyboard layout, German, upload attempt #120,".

I don't know anything about SQL, but is the character sequence ',,' appropriate? [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']] 19:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:You were right about the ",,". The PNG file you uploaded had zero length, and for some reason the file size variable got set to an empty string instead of "0". I'll submit it to the bug tracker. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 00:02, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

::Not just 0 length, it turns out, but also didn't even exist... Was trying to upload "Keyboard Layout German.png", when it was called "Keyboard_Layout_German.png" on my computer... Apparently Windows seems to think there is a difference between spaces and underscores, despite that Wikipedia knows there isn't... Managed to upload, at last... [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']] 01:24, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

==Mother Teresa article==

Hi, I've called a vote on [[Talk:Mother Teresa]] to clarify once and for all what people think about the current article and what we should do about it. Please express your opinion. lol [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 23:05, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

=='''Wikitrivia proposal'''==

''See [[m:WikiTrivia]]''

== Linux future ==

-->[[Wikipedia:Reference desk]]

== Voting policy ==

I tried looking for a voting policy, but I did not find one, so I propose a draft: [[Wikipedia:Voting policy draft]]

I think voting should be standardized and formalized or else any vote should not be binding for anything. I hate that it has to be this formal, but I think it will be more democratic this way and it will lower complaints.

Please edit at will the draft, it was only the first thing that came to my mind. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Wikipedia :)

The whole idea could also be scapped if enough people think it's crap.

[[User:Dori|Dori]] 15:09, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

== Largest WPs ==

I know there is a list top 10 largest wikipedias somewhere but I cant find it. Can someone help me? [[User:BL|BL]] 01:53, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: [[Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics#Fastest Growing Wikipedias]]. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 05:25, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

== Wikipedia needs editor ==

Should articles have an editor? See [[m:Wikipedia needs editors]]

There's an alternative proposal that I think might achieve the desired aim while doing no damage at all to our current structure and culture at [[m:Referees]]. Of course this ground might have all been covered before, I can't find it yet but the Meta is a big place. Comments welcome. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 03:02, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Check [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia approval mechanism]] -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogostick]] 03:26, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

==Double Voting on Vfd==

I've noticed lately that there seems to be gaggle of brand new users who's only real edits seem to be to vote to keep things on Vfd. Earlier it was [[User:Wartortle]] and the dozen some of the dozen other names apparently created by [[User:Tester]] (see [[WP:PU]]). Now there seems to be [[User:Princess Toadstool]], [[User:Macarenaman]] and [[User:Peter Farrell]]. It seems to me that the last three were created by 1 person with aims of keeping the page [[Dork]], apparently created by [[User:Mwbassguy]]. I don't now if all these events are related, but I'm suspicious. Is there any way to check to see if double (or more) voting is occuring on Vfd. [[User:Maximus Rex|Maximus Rex]] 02:28, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)"

:Hang on, I'll see what I can do -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 02:34, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

:Logs were checked for roughly the last 14 hours. Princess Toadstool, Macarenaman and David Stapleton were all using the same IP address. During that period, the only edits made from that IP were to VFD. The address is an AOL proxy. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 02:49, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

:I just realised David Stapleton wasn't on your list, in fact he's just an ordinary Wikipedian. My word, the interesting things you can discover when you [[grep]] logs... -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 02:55, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

:The David Stapleton thing may have just been a coincidence. The edits are overlapping, and nobody manually logged in at any stage. David Stapleton was using section editing, whereas PT was not. And I have an edit by Antonio Martin using the same proxy, the previous day. Time to publish, I think. [[User:Tim Starling/Log segment 1]] -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 03:18, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

:[[User:Panochik]] is another user created solely for the purpose of voting on VfD. [[User:RickK|RickK]] 03:25, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:Just to be clear: it is my opinion that neither David Stapleton nor Antonio Martin were responsible for creating these false identities. AOL has many more users than proxies. By chance, David Stapleton and Antonio Martin were using the same proxy as this Princess Toadstool and friends. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 00:38, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

== www.WikiImages.org ==

I would like to contribute 500 Images to Wikipedia. I work in 3 Languages. That means, 1500 Uploads :-(

Could we not create a central images Database for all Wikipedias with just translated titles or so? Please comment on [[meta:WikiImages.org]]. Thanks :-) [[User:Fantasy|Fantasy]] 07:39, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

== Protecting Wikipedia ==

In some ways, this is a follow-up to the thread on "Wikipedia Needs an Editor."

In particular, security was mentioned in passing, but I would like to make that the

focus of attention, and to suggest that the Wikicommunity should adopt some measures in an effort to protect what has already been accomplished, and to

help ensure that frustrated Wikipedians do not give up in despair.

Some Wikipedians seem to believe that things aren't so bad, so nothing needs to be done. I am not in a position to quantify how bad things are, but there are several indicators that the costs associated with protecting Wikipedia are already quite high. More to the point, the growing size and reputation of Wikipedia will

make it an increasingly attractive target for vandals. I don't know if an automated attack been launched yet, but wouldn't it be better to try to avoid it?

What can be done? I am not a security expert, but it seems to me that

one of the first steps that could be taken would be in the direction of ensuring

that only suitably registered individuals can MODIFY pages created by others.

Security of course is not an absolute, but the history of the Internet

yields too many examples of "nice ideas" being overtaken by vandalism in one form or another. The survival of the U.S. system of government can plausibly

be attributed to the *pessimism* of the authors of the Constitution.

: I think the idea of having the Wikipedia completely open is much more attractive than a semi-closed system to only registered users. (My 2c, in any case) [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 08:31, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: I don't think vandalism is a big problem really, and requiring registration wouldn't solve much (the most persistent and bothersome vandals have no problem registered accounts anyway). The only real worry is that if it's not caught immediately from the recent changes page, some of it slips through and stays in Wikipedia for months, which leads to an overall lowered quality (I found an "president of my ass" or something similar inserted into some politician's article that had been there for about 3 weeks, for example). --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 08:37, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

A quick response:

* Have you recently checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist ?

The day is not yet done, but six cases of vandalism have already

been dealt with today (Oct 28), and they all involve (anonymous) IP

addresses. Whoever is spending time on this could be spending time

more wiki-usefully.

* Please reflect on Gresham's Law ("Bad currency drives out good.")

There's a Wikipedia under that name but better yet there is Aristophanes.

In his play, The Frogs [405BC], he wrote:

The course our city runs is the same towards men and money.

She has true and worthy sons.

She has fine new gold and ancient silver,

coins untouched with alloys, gold or silver,

each well minted, tested each and ringing clear.

Yet we never use them!

Others pass from hand to hand,

sorry brass just struck last week and branded with a wretched brand.

So with men we know for upright, blameless lives and noble names.

These we spurn for men of brass....

See the thread "We've lost another two..." above.

-- 1635, Oct 28, 2003 (EST)

Surprising to people outside wikipedia and interesting, vandalism has been controlled very well so far. It seems the truth is that there are more wise, sensitive people than more those who are interested in damging things. The more we have vandalist, actually the more and more we have gained good eye-bolws. The trouble most came from well-intention from knowledgable people--those who care a lot of their topics so that they run into conflicts. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 22:14, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

If Wikipedia became an attractive enough target, a vandal could acquire a bunch of zombie computers (through computer viruses or other means), and then perform a Distributed Vandalism Attack, where each infected IP address would vandalize a few random pages. With thousands and thousands of pages vandalized by thousands and thousands of different IPs, we'd have to roll back the database to before the vandalisms started, and then lock out edits long enough to change Wikimedia to be incompatible with the viruses. And then the vandal would make a new virus that would be compatible with the new Wikimedia, and it would start all over again. -- [[User:Khym Chanur|Khym Chanur]] 07:45, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

:That has happened yet, thankfully. The theory is that our servers are so slow that they would give up and die if thousands of people tried to edit them at once. So damage to the DB would be limited. Our response time would hopefully be reasonably short -- about 20 active Wikipedians have the contact details of the developers, one of them would hopefully make the call in short order and we'd lock the DB. If we wanted to improve this system, we could put a global maximum on the edit rate. But if someone really had thousands of compromised systems at their disposal, why on earth would they attack Wikipedia with them? Taking www.whitehouse.gov down is so much more glamorous. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 08:07, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

==Classics Pictures==

I need a picture with a Roman feel for a project I'm working on. I just need some eye candy to brighten up the text, like one could find on the front of any Latin textbook, but Wikipedia seems to be very short of pictures in the classics articles. Does any body know of *any* pictures of Roman things in classics articles? [[User:Cgs|CGS]] 09:40, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC).

:I've posted a few images of Roman coins. Not sure if any of them would be useful. [[User:Maximus Rex|Maximus Rex]] 21:20, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:Check out [[Gallery of Pompeii and Herculaneum]], too.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]] 00:53, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

::There are some picture on the [[chariot racing]] page (a couple of Greek vases, a Roman mosaic, and the bronze horses from the hippodrome). [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 20:29, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

==[[Gia Marie Carangi]] or [[Gia Carangi]]?==

: I dont oppose to the page about Gia carrying any of those two names, but a merger needs to be done. I just saw, on [[Gia]], that ''Gia Marie Carangi'' had no page so of course I thought Gia had no page and wrote ''Gia Marie...''...merger anyone?? +

- ''[[User:AntonioMartin|Antonio Gia Wannabe Martin]]''

::Done! I kept the title as [[Gia Marie Carangi]] as it had more links to it. [[User:Angela|Angela]]

==[[List of song titles phrased as questions]]==

This page has been unexplicably blanked without discussion by [[User::Walklib|Walklib]]. I know that some of the Wikitrivia topics are controversial, but this is not the correct procedure. Can a sysop please revert the page to the last useful edit? Thanks. [[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] 18:43, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:Ok, I reverted it but you don't need to be a sysop to do this. See [[Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version]]. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 20:24, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

== Edits being saved but not shown? ==

I hope this isn't the wrong place to ask and that I'm not just being a buffoon. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia (but not to wikis) and thought that I would do my civic duty and update an entry that I was using in some research but found slightly lacking and unclear. The entry is question is about the [[Platt Amendment]]. I reworded the description and added some text of the Amendment itself, but when I go to the page, my changes haven't shown up. The funny thing, however, is that when I click on the Page History link, my changes (and IP address) seem to show up as current. If I request a diff, I do indeed see the changes that I made. So why does the page still show the older version? Do I need to have an account and be logged in? For what it's worth, I skimmed the FAQ but did not see anything relevent. Thanks!

:No, you don't need to be logged on or have an account. Your changes are there. Maybe a caching problem? [[User:Angela|Angela]] 20:24, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

:: I am having the same problem as originally described. If there is a cacheing problem, it is on the server side. Who should be notified?

:::See [[Wikipedia:Clear your cache|Clear your cache]] and [[Wikipedia:Troubleshooting|Troubleshooting]] -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 23:39, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:This shouldn't happen. If you can work out a procedure to reliably repeat the problem, Wikipedia's developers will be forever grateful. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 00:11, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

::::Same problem as discussed twice earlier- redirect pages don't show current edits unless logged in. I checked out, this page has a redirect, so there...(couldn't resist this clarification during self-enforced break:-)[[User:KRS|KRS]] 16:35, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, original poster here with some followup. The older version of the page was even showing up on a computer that had never accessed wikipedia before, so I'm reasonably sure it wasn't a caching problem. I created an account and found that when logged in, the correct version of the page is displayed. When logged out, the old version. To reproduce: use a web browser or computer that has never accessed wikipedia before and go to the main page. (You could possibly just log out, but this is how I reproduced it.) Search for "platt amendment" and briefly note the content of the page. There should be no text between the bold headings "Full Text" and "Article I." (This is the old version.) Now log with your account and do the same thing. You should see my changes (the new version) which include some text between the two headings mentioned above. Anyone else able to reproduce this? If this should be a bug, who do I report it to? (P.S. KRS added his comment as I was trying to add this... So, is this a feature or a bug?) [[User:Eil|Eil]] 17:32, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:Okay, I've backed out [http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/phase3/includes/Article.php?r1=1.24.2.13&r2=1.24.2.14 this change] which was intended to reduce database load on cached pages but fails in the case of redirects, whereas the previous behavior was to always load the page text from the database and then throw it away if the is cacheable. Redirect pages should now ignore any old cached copies, though this has some expense in database and rendering load.

:This should fix the immediate problem until a better solution is found for dealing with caching redirects. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]] 00:25, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

== Establish context! ==

Just a friendly reminder: '''[[Wikipedia:Establish context|establish context!]]'''

I notice one of the bigger minor corrections I've been doing lately is contextualizing articles. Many people seem to write from the perspective of someone who is vaguely familiar with the field; but some people might not even know what what you're writing about is a piece of computer software, or a concept in mathematics. Example picked mostly at random: [[Yacc]] said "Yacc is the standard parser generator on Unix systems.", which to someone who is not aware of the existence of [[parser generator]]s or [[Unix]] systems isn't very helpful in saying what exactly yacc ''is''. Modified version (feel free to reword better): "Yacc is a piece of computer software that serves as the standard parser generator on Unix systems."

The mathematics examples can usually be fixed just by adding "In [[mathematics, ..." to the beginning, or sometimes "In [[mathematics]], particularly [[group theory]], ...". --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 04:37, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

:I did that a countless times. Actually it is neccesary not be writers' fault. Sometimes writers do not know what he is talking about! For example, I have just added an article [[Akita Sanesue]] from an open content website. I know the article needs more context, but I really cannot add more because I don't know who he is honestly. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 21:47, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

==American English v British English==

I recently edited [[Privatization]] to conform to American spelling (not that I entirely agree with it) because the dominant form was American. Another editor reverted one of my edits because it deleted the alternative spelling. Should we be including phrases like '''Privatization''' (also known as '''Privatisation''') when we introduce an article with alternative spelling? See also [[Nationalization]]. [[User:Tiles|Tiles]] 06:33, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's common to use both. One way of saying it some articles use is along the lines of "'''Privatization''' ([[British English]]: '''Privatisation''') ...", but this (or the reverse) seems to prefer one usage over the other as canonical. I'd prefer "'''Privatization''' or '''privatisation''' ...", with whichever one the article is titled as coming first. As for which to title it as, I'd prefer just whichever the original author used; moving is just going to cause edit wars. An exception is articles clearly relating to a region, in which case the dominant usage of that region should be used. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 06:53, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

: A few days ago, I put down the compromise that seems to be the unofficial policy on [[Wikipedia:Americocentrism]], but it was not really complete. Therefore, I just finished a codification of what I believe is the complete unofficial policy (and made it official, I suppose) on [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]. Please take a look. (Some people will not be pleased until Wikipedia is wholly American or British in spelling; I am sure they will not be happy with this codification, but it does seem to be the unofficial policy and it has worked well in my experience here. Perhaps someday, a technical solution will be available, but until then, we might as well write it down) [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 23:45, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

==Truth Controversy==

Article on [[Truth]] is currently being kicked around a bit by a couple of users. My view is that one of the articles is of fairly good quality by someone with a philosophical education. The other one is illiterate. But who decides in such cases? [[User:dbuckner]]

:The normal course of action is to discuss it on the articles talk page. Is there a discussion on it there? &mdash;[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 16:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

==[[Wilfred Benitez|Benitez]], [[Roberto Duran|Duran]], [[Marvin Hagler|Hagler]], [[Thomas Hearns|Hearns]] and [[Sugar Ray Leonard|Leonard]]==

Im thinking of writing an article about the important and historical rivalty these 5 boxers maintained among themselves dthrought the decade of the [[1980s]], with a timeline for each of their fights against each other. The problem is, since no official nickname was ever given by writers, critics, historians, etc to these ''fab five'' of boxing, I have no idea what to call the article..any ideas? ''[[User:AntonioMartin|Antonio Fab One Martin]]''

: Maybe it's not worth an encyclopedia article? Otherwise, I'd suggest going completely generic and write articles like [[Boxing in the 1980s]] which could also cover other topics specific to certain decades. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 23:47, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

== revert war (well, a skirmish) ==

Following Angela's advice (above), I created a new page [[History of Poland (1939-1945)]], and redirected the old page [[General Government]] to it. An anonymous user called 145.254.117.188 keeps un-redirecting the article, plus making edits to both articles which reflect a Polish nationalist POV and are in bad English. 145 has now taken to accusing me of being anti-Polish at my Talk page as well. I therefore request that [[General Government]] be deleted, and a new, empty, [[General Government]] be created and redirected to [[History of Poland (1939-1945)]], so that 145 can't restore the old text. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 03:48, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::* ''The problem is that General Government was an administrative unit, so its history is only a part of history of Poland 1939-45. This doesn't make any sense to get rid of General Government. Maybe good distribution of data between pages would do the same. [[User:GH|GH]]''

:I had problems with the same user. He made very POV (anti-German) changes to certain articles dealing Germany and Poland, which I reverted. I listed him on [[WP:PU|Problem Users]], then they listed me on Problems Users. After removing myself and being relisted on Problems Users, I had [[User:Angela]] move the discussion to [[Talk:Heimatvertriebene]] (to get my name off Problem Users). The user ("[[User:GH|GH]]" supposedly but never logs in) seems unwilling to make NPOV edits. [[User:Maximus Rex|Maximus Rex]] 04:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::* ''The pages you are referring to are still disputed. Information, that you try to protect, are not anti-Polish or pro-Polish, they are simply factuary wrong. Despite the fact, that I know more details about some problems, details given by my are kept deleted.[[User:GH|GH]]''

:I don't think he knows what NPOV is, he is only here to defend Polish national honour etc. This is a type I am sadly familiar with. Also his English isn't good enough to argue with him. This reinforces my strong view that '''anonymous users should not be allowed to edit pages.''' Call me old-fashioned... [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 04:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::* ''You already accepted 90% adjustments, I proposed and still made such a biased statements against me personally. If it were up to you, the reader would think that Germany in 1939 annexed only areas up to 1914 border, that [[Lodz]] belonged to [[General Goverrnment]] and probably, the most important, that Polish history 39-45 is the same as General-Government.

::The only problem we have here, is that I know much more details about the interesting questions and I can help you to review your pages, so they contain true informations.

::[[User:GH|GH]]

I am not the slightestly inclined to get involved in more warfares around matters of Poland's history. But many contributors, in particular them being cock-sure of their own NPOV-ishness, tend to neglect the involved emotions, it seems. Not the least the degree of disappointment, sadness and anger over how Poland, when formally on the victorious side of World War II, could be so harshly hit in the post-war decades.

Now, you say, the emotions have no place in the encyclopaedic articles, and nobody would argue against that, of course. But the emotions is a driving force which complicates the issue, as you don't have to be much of a nationalist patriot to ''see'' belittling of Poland's sufferings in edits which in the rest of the world rather would be seen as pedagogically motivated simplifications. If we don't recognize the emotions behind the edit-war, then we can be pretty sure of the defeated party going increasingly bitter against wikipedia. And that is exactly what wikipedia doesn't need.

On the issue at stake, the question of a separate article on the [[General Government]], or not, I think that would be as much appropriate as separate articles on [[Vichy France]] and the [[Free French]].<br>

But that's only my personal view, of course.<br>

--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 18:14, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

==Ban Functions==

I'm wondering if there is any handy (or not so handy) source of information how IP and user ban works. Among the questions I have are:

#Will we be able to post some message to the user who is banned? (We have an option of using meta, if not. But it is nice to have some means.)

#Will the ban simply denies editing? or the banned user cannot even view Wikipedia articles?

#Will the IP-banned user be able to create an account and log on? Or when an IP is banned, all users from the IP, including logged-on users, will be banned?

Any pointer will be appreciated. And just to clarify, I am not planning to behave bad and be banned :-p , but I am just looking for info. on be half of Japanese wikipedians. Thanks for your help. [[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 04:45, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The answers to these questions, as far as I know, are:

#Users who are blocked can still see their own talk pages, so messages to them should be received.

#In fact, blocked users can see all of Wikipeda; but they are barred from editing it.

#An IP block will block signed-in users trying to edit from that IP. (Occasionally, a user in good standing will be inadvertently blocked because the IP was previously used by a vandal.)

Also:

*IP blocks expire automatically after 24 hours.

*Blocking a named user also automatically blocks all users who share that IP, so you can't just create a new account to get around a block.

*There's a distinction between "banning", which is a specific decision by Jimbo to reject a particular user (and comes in various shades), and "blocking", which is the technological method of implementing a ban. There's a user who frequently edits from the IP range 142.177.xxx.xxx who is banned, but not blocked (and in fact was quite active this past day).

-- [[User:Cyan|Cyan]] 05:46, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::Thanks! That clarifies a lot. [[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 05:52, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

One of you who understands this well should probably update [[Wikipedia:Bans and blocks]], which is currently woefully out of date, and lacks all the information just posted here. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 10:49, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

:Okay. It will happen soon. -- [[User:Cyan|Cyan]] 18:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

== ''Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit pages'' ==

This is a followup to three articles on this page:

* "We've lost another two"

* "protecting Wikipedia"

* "revert war"

The consequences of bias, brutishness,

vandalism, and incompetence are detailed in these posts

and elsewhere, and yet many of the respondents seem to ignore

the costs and perils of the current policy.

* Please don't ignore those who have given up in despair!

* Please don't forget that there are those who have heard about "revert wars" and decided not to bother in the first place!

Some of the people who may have the most valuable content to offer

the project are likely to have little inclination or time

to monitor the fate of their contributions let alone engage in

interminable combat. Yes, there are some protections, but these

all have their own costs.

In summary, I commend to you Adam's principle: ''anonymous users should not be allowed to edit pages.''

:I don't understand why everyone equates anonymity with editing when logged out. Here is a guy simply named "Peak", with no user page, telling us all that anonymity should not be allowed. It doesn't make sense.

:Nomenclature aside, will raising the barriers to entry by requiring users to spend 20 seconds creating an account prevent all vandalism? Most vandalism (certainly not all) comes from logged out users, but it doesn't follow that requiring account creation will deter those users. It's just as likely to deter the thousands of logged out users who contribute in good faith. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 08:59, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

:: And strangely enough, Peak's first and only edit is here. My two cents, though: not having to register is vital to Wikipedia's 1) mission and 2) appeal. For no other reason, Wikipedia turns heads when casual visitors see an "Edit this page" link instead of "Register now" button. What we have now is a '''zero barrier to entry''', and raising our shields would severely affect the character of Wikipedia and the appeal. I certainly do feel registered/logged in users should have more privileges (voting for deletion, logos, etc.) but the privilege to edit here should be extended to all. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 09:17, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::: Denying editing for non logged in users is meaningless, unless we also implement checks on who we allow to create an account, and that... Phhhpt. -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogostick]] 09:31, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

::::Sorry, no easy high-tech solutions to all the strife in the world. Wikipedia is just a reflection of real-world issues.

::::-- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 09:44, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:::: There is a problem. And I think it's important for you who feel associated with wikipedia ''as it works now'' not to see in another direction. People who've got tired of wikipedia in its current state, surely will not be there when it has detoriated that much further, that even you realize it's gone too far.

:::: I can't help thinking of dr [[Martin Niemöller]]'s famous [[First they came...]]

::::--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 13:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:::::There is an old saying in [[science fiction fandom]]: "Close the doors of fandom, as soon as I get in." It isn't so long from the time that I discovered Wikipedia, that I wouldn't remember doing edits before I created a username. If I had to have signed in before editing, I honestly don't think I would have bothered. -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogostick]] 21:47, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

:::: There is no problem, and Wikipedia is not deteriorating. For a site that's wide open to the world, article quality is remarkably high and conflicts are remarkably rare. People who have gotten tired of Wikipedia in its current state are welcome to leave, and we thank them for their contributions. I find Niemöller's quote that deals with Nazi crimes tastelessly out of place. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 15:32, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::::: I think there are things to address, but whether we call them ''problems'' or ''opportunities'' is a matter of mindset. In particular, there are current suggestions and attempts to improve the [[w:please don't bite the newbies|reception given to new contributors]], the [[m:referees|quality of articles generally]], and the [[w:cleanup|efficiency of our processes]].

::::: I think there's room for progress in all of these, but I also think our approach at this stage should be evolutionary, not radical. A complete change in core policy such as this suggestion is not to be taken lightly. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:05, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC) above

----

== Measuring Disputes ==

After a week of observing serious concerns on Village Pump -- "Wikipedia

needs an editor", "We've lost another two", "protecting Wikipedia", NPOV disputes, epidemic personal attacks, and the like -- I wanted to find out how well perception stood up to the statistics. What I found was a real surprise. Searching through all articles for [[Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute]] warnings, care to guess how many articles came back? With 160,000+ articles in EN, I was thinking hundreds if not thousands were in dispute, but the actual number was 89. (September 20, 2003 database dump, with recent dumps about the same). That's 0.06% of pages being NPOV disputed. Of those 89 articles, 30 are related to Israel-Palestine or Jewish-Muslim issues. See [[User:Fuzheado/metrics]] for the actual list.

Granted, not all hotly debated articles have an "NPOV dispute" notice at the top, but with my guess being an order of magnitude (or two) WAY OFF is telling. Even if we are generous and say there are 10 times as many articles that are "hot button" and are not labeled "NPOV dispute" that's still only 0.6% of articles. A very small number of articles are creating headaches and bad blood. It seems to not be an 80-20 rule but a 99-1 rule. Just something to keep in perspective as we propose massive policy changes that may drastically change the face of Wikipedia. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] 10:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:Yes, Fuzheado makes a fair point. I have contributed or done major edits on about 120 articles, of which only four or five have led to serious POV or factual disputes: [[Vergina]] (with a mad Greek nationlist), [[History of Poland (1939-1945)]] (mad Polish ditto), [[Adolf Hitler]] (loonies of all kinds), [[Jesus Christ]] and [[Mother Teresa]] (Christians), [[China and the United Nations]] (the irrepressible Jiang). I think that rule probably applies across the board - 90 or 95% of all articles are not controversial and are rarely if ever edited by anyone other than their author. Even my rewrite of [[Maoism]] hasn't stirred any feathers (and I did try).

:But the problem is with the remaining 5%, which deal with big, conceptual, hot-button issues, on which consensus will never be reached: abortion, Zionism, terrorism, Dubya, etc. These articles will go on being editted and counter editted forever. Does that matter? Well if WP ever wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopaedia, eventually it will have to have a respectable, settled text on these issues. No-one is going to use or cite an encyclopaedia where every time they look up a controversial subject they find an ill-written spawling jumble of contradictory statements which changes every five minutes.

:Just some thoughts :) [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 12:45, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::Question to Fuzheado: does your query also give some clue as to the number of '''Users''' who are creating all the alarums and havoc? [[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] 17:35, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

::Good observations, Fuzheado, and thoughts, Adam. Here's my lateral thinking... the respectability you suggest and the joyful anarchy we currently have are not mutually exclusive. IMO our current software and culture are both '''almost''' sufficient to support both similtaneously. I have a suggestion at [[m:referees]] which is just one way in which we could try to introduce a form of ''baselining'' without disrupting the current culture. Interested in others. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:16, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

== Not for VdF (or Cleanup), but... ==

[[Either]] is a fascinating article. But does it not belong in the [[Wiktionary]]? -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 11:41, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:Firstly, any article which puzzles, belongs on Cleanup. Secondly, I personally do not see any reason why we should not have articles on words, and the concepts they embody. They just shouldn't be ''dictionary-entries'' (if you see the distinction). [[Either]] is not just a mere dictionary entry (though it comes close). If that is all that can be said about "either", maybe even VFD is not totally out of the question, but I certainly do not see that as a pressing matter. The article discusses stuff you wouldn't find in a dictionary, and maybe someone will expand it... -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogostick]] 11:58, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

::My latest quixotic project is to make pages for at least the most interesting of [[Wikipedia:Common words, searching for which is not possible]]. I tried ''either'', and perhaps I failed. [[Other]] is coming; it will be better. -- [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 13:53, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:::Interestingly, Google ''will'' search for ''either'' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=iso-8859-1&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipedia.org&q=either&btnG=Google+Search&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipedia.org] I thought perhaps it was a stop word. No criticism intended, BTW, by all means, continue... -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 14:25, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

==Terri Schiavo article==

I can't find an article for [[Terri Schiavo]] - is it under another name? -[[User:Speaker of Your Mom|Speaker of Your Mom]]

:I don't think there is one; I tried to find one, too. Go ahead and create one. [[User:Paul Klenk|Paul Klenk]] 16:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

==Is discussion of LDS temple rites illegal?==

[[[[User:BoNoMoJo]] deleted discussion of LDS temple rites from [[Temples_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints]], suggesting on [[Talk:Temples_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|the talk page]] that such discussion was not only immoral but illegal. Further input would be desirable. -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 18:49, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:While not a lawyer, [[User:BoNoMoJo]]'s arguments lack credibility to me. Quoting directly from copyright material of the church would obviously be illegal if they refuse permission (subject to rights of fair use, of course) - but the bogus 'right to privacy' he invokes is utter nonsense. If the church makes its members sign a contract before revealing its inner secrets, then it would be a possible breach of contract law and trade secrets law, but the fact is that this information has now been revealed by so many as to be public knowledge. The church could go after members for revealing its secrets, but I do not think it now has the right to have this information removed. --[[User:Morven|Morven]] 19:32, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

::Morven is 100% correct. BoNoMoJo's arguments lack credibility and seem legally dubious, to put it mildly. In the absence of a contract of secrecy involving all members of the Church, the 'right to privacy' argument seems spurious and I would go so far as to say bogus. [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 00:05, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:::I think the cultural issues here may be more important than the legal ones although IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) either. If these were the religious secrets of an illiterate tribal society I think we would have qualms about the article. What's the difference? Please note, I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm not saying I think the article should be blanked. I'm saying I don't know, the question is a real one, and I think we should discuss it and perhaps try to work out a policy. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 00:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)