Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 49

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 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

Category membership watchlist beta testing

There is a new tool on labs that allows watching category membership changes (pages added/removed) to user specified categories. It can also monitor template addition/removal. Here is a sample watchlist. There is also a recent changes list that displays recent categorization changes. Feedback can be left on the bots talk page. --Bamyers99 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Esperento / Ido

Where is the apropriate place for this suggestion?... Does it belong somewhere on the WikiMedia site? Or on the Esperento or Ido wikipedias? "As as esperento and ido are closly similar contributions to one wikipedia should be added to the other wikipedia as well thru machine translation " --Thank You Naytz (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps at village pump(technical) ? Naytz (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say you would need to discuss on the two wikipedia's involved to see if it is something they want to do. It does not involve the English wikipedia so would not be something to discuss on this wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Naytz: It's certainly not an English Wikipedia matter; I suspect that it's something to bring up at meta: you could try the talk page of the Language committee on Meta. See also m:Proposals for closing projects. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You might talk to User:Amire80, who can probably tell you about the pros and cons of this idea. (Short answer: it definitely depends on the quality of the available machine translations.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Whatamidoing :)

Esperanto and Ido are indeed similar, and a machine translation engine for them can be made relatively easily. As all machine translation, humans will have to check the quality of the text, but the initial output should be very good. Apertium is a good Free package for building machine translation between similar languages. It already has some support for Esperanto, but not Ido. Someone actually has to invest time in building the language pair files for Esperanto-Ido translation. If that is done, it will be easy to integrate it with ContentTranslation. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing of articles in categories

Hi all - sorry if this has been mentioned before (I couldn't see it on a quick scan through the archives). Categories seem to have become weird, annoying, and difficult to use for me recently. Whereas up until a week or so ago, a category with over 200 articles would list the first 200 on its first category page divided neatly into three columns of 65-70, they now seem to be broken into columns dependant upon their first letter/number. Which means that for big categories, often you'll get two columns, one of, say, 170 As and one of the first 30 Bs, or just one long column. Small categories seem to be equally haphazard. Is there any preferences and/or java changes I can make to restore the previous method (if it's a glitch with me alone, FWIW I use Google Chrome 41.0.2272.104 and use the monobook skin) Grutness...wha? 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it every category, or just some? I know there were some changes, but I thought they were just about the formatting of the columns. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Grutness: This is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Have categories been messed with?. The display is optimised when page names are evenly-distributed through the alphabet, but that's rarely the case. It's best to provide examples.

@Whatamidoing (WMF): For a single-page example, try Category:Heart of Wales Line where the high proportion of railway stations beginning "Llan" (this is Wales, remember) forces all the Ls into the last column, causing the centre column to end after just four entries - 12.5% of the category, instead of after 10 or 11 entries, for 33.3% of the cat. For a multi-page but moderate example, try Category:Former London and North Western Railway stations which has A and B in the first column, D, E and F in the second, G and part of H in the third - notice the large gap below the last of the Hs. For a more extreme example, have a look at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates; this is a maintenance cat which I work through alphabetically every few months; when I came to it about a week ago, there were some 1200 pages in the cat. I've been working at it at about one or two letters per day, and last night I did the I's and J's, and it got down to about 550 - but after 10 hours it's now up to 628 again. It fills up pretty quickly (because inexperienced users simply do not understand that adding {{pp-move-indef}} or {{pp-pc1}} is only appropriate for pages which already have with an indefinite move protection or level 1 pending changes) and is a never-ending task, but for the moment it demonstrates the problem very well, since letters up to J have few pages compared to later letters. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): - here are a few good examples of the problem: Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs, Category:Living people, Category:Chatham Cup, Category:Years, Category:English writers Category:United States Navy ship names... and basically any other category with over a couple of hundred articles or with unevenly distributed article names. Which is a LOT of categories. With smaller categories the effect is often disguised because there will only be a handful of articles beginning with each letter or number - but with big categories it's a nightmare. Grutness...wha? 10:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. That is pretty awkward. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Statistics about my deletions

I wonder if it is possible to get statistics for how many article I prodded, or nominated for AfD, and how many of those were successful? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your AFD stats ostensibly show you making 294 nominations and 119 resulting in deletions. However, the table has counted you as !voting keep in some, for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Helga_Guitton, where you do not seem to have actually changed your !vote although you acknowledged the work done to save the article. Thincat (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Thincat: Thanks. Is there any tool analyzing proposed deletions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Piotrus, I don't know of any tool for PROD statistics. But your last 100 deleted edits go back to 2 February, and your edit summaries include the word 'prod' for 44 of them. For unsuccessful prods you can survey your own contribution list for the word 'prod'. At least one user has been keeping a table of the results of his own proposed deletions. See User:Blanchardb/Prod statistics. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Doesn't one have to be an admin to view (any)one's deleted edits and their edit summaries? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Both PROD and CSD have the problem that non-admins can't see the deleted articles. But notice Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#PROD (proposed deletion) for another way of tracking prods. It allows you to create a userspace log of your prods. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Why on earth would you want that? Wikipedia Isn't a race for the most deletions! Magnus bjerg (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

4 year old hoax reverted

I just reverted a hoax that was inserted in November 2010 and had gone undetected for 4 years. Amazingly, it survived the scrutiny of such venerable editors as Roger Davies, Missvain, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Waacstats, and Lockley. Also, I'm amazed that Adrienne Monnier's article is so tiny. Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not surprising. That page has 9 watchers, and averages about 15 views per day. Vandalism gets through, and sometimes people miss it. No one is to blame, and no one is to be made to feel bad for that. We fix it, we move on, and we don't hold other good-faith editors to blame for missing it. This isn't a game, you don't win because you made others feel bad about themselves (or tried to. Not sure you succeeded in much except revealing your own pettiness). Just revert, move on, and forget about it. It's what the cool kids are all doing. --Jayron32 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: In case you misread what I wrote, I actually complimented the editors that I listed. I called them venerable, which means worthy of veneration. Some of those editors are my personal friends and I certainly had no intention of making them feel bad. I was just surprised that no one had caught it before me. The post was meant in good humor, and if anyone felt like it was a criticism I sincerely apologize. Could you please retract your personal attacks against me? Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari, thanks for finding and fixing that problem. Thanks for calling us venerable. I'm putting that on my CV right away. Here's wishing that you and Jayron32 can both, in good humor, let any misunderstanding slide. I say this with mellow voice from my rocking chair through my long white mustache. Cause I'm freakin' venerable and no one can stop me now. --Lockley (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We need a "venerable" badge to put on our front porches (User pages). Maybe something with a rocking chair in it. Where can I suggest such a talisman? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards seems like a good place. I'm a terrible graphic artist, but someone should be able to knock one out pretty easily, if they know what they are doing. --Jayron32 16:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Only 4 years? - X201 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is worse: finding a 4-year-old hoax like that, or writing an article then returning to it 4+ years later to find a glaring typo no one bothered fixing. (The former implies our information is not accurate; the latter that, for the most part, no one is really reading it.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Emoji on Wikipedia.

Hi!
I made a template to insert emoji on discussion pages! You can find it at: {{emoji}}.
They supplement the already available emoticons with a larger set of symbols. There are options for size and for different visual themes (available from Commons); you can see them on the documentation page at Template:Emoji. There’s also a palette of available emojis there.
Have a nice day!
~ Nclm (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See {{smiley}}. -- Gadget850 ^talk 12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew about {{smiley}}. Emoji is simply a Unicode standardised set of emoticons. They form a larger ensemble, and are in a more consistent style, than other emoticons templates are. We’ve got three free licensed entire themes of emoji on Commons, so I think it’s an interesting alternative. Nclm (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nclm: Did you know that most licenses, including the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license used on File:Emojione 1F60A.svg, require a link to the image page to satisfy the attribution requirement? Anomie⚔ 20:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you’re right! I’m quite ashamed not to have thought about this.
Thanks for editing the template and putting things right! Nclm (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Using USGS Quads?

I want to use an excerpt from the USGS Flushing NY Quad to illustrate an article. Since the USGS is part of the US Government, I assumed that anything they do is published without copyright, but I'm unable to find a place to download the quads from that looks like a government site. The best I found was https://www.topoquest.com/map-detail.php?usgs_cell_id=15664, which is a commercial site that looks like it re-publishes the government charts. Does anybody know where I can find a free image of the USGS topo charts? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I found Libre Map. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ten years of Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell coming up.

As we are less than one month away from the ten-year anniversary of the creation of the Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell essay, I propose that we celebrate by making it policy. I may be four days late in asking for this. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Synonyms Available in Wikipedia

[copied post removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanus444 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This was also posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Synonyms Available in Wikipedia. Please only start a discussion in one place. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Manikin

What is this called in English?

Is the image here called a Manikin? In the article only the life-size version is mentioned. I'm asking to make correct interwiki links to the Dutch article Ledenpop, the German article Gliederpuppe. Thanks Ellywa (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would think Manikin should be merged with Mannequin. They're really just two spellings of the same word. See, for example, [1], where the two spellings are used interchangeably. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Who is going to do it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How strange, in Dutch we have different names for the items in a shop or on a table of an artist. So a correct interwiki will not be possible then. Ellywa (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sixty Minutes does a piece on Wikipedia

60 Minutes is a high-profile news program here in the US. link I was hoping someone had seen or heard the piece & had started a conversation here about their response to this. (And yes, Gregory Kohs already submitted his opinion in the comments to that article.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of discussion here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wiki_Wiki_Buses. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Automatic citation formatting is on its way

Citoid, the automagic citation filling tool, is on its way at last. It's been up at the French and Italian Wikipedias for a while, with positive feedback overall. The time isn't firmly settled, but Wednesday evening UTC is most likely. This has been one of the most-requested features from experienced editors.

Citoid depends upon good TemplateData. Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial explains how to write the basics by hand, but the TemplateData GUI tool is usually faster and easier. It also depends upon external services like Zotero. If your favorite website isn't working, it probably needs a new Zotero entry. The design is less than ideal. There is a book-with-bookmark button for Citoid, next to a now-unlabeled "Cite" menu for filling in citations the old way.

If you have suggestions on how to improve the design, then please leave your comments where the designers are most likely to see them, at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. If you have any other suggestions or run into problems, then please leave feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. If you would like to see Citoid at another wiki, then you may make that request in Phabricator: by creating a new task under the "Citoid" project. Most requests will probably not be granted for the next couple of weeks, but evidence that TemplateData is current on your main citation templates will likely improve your chances.

Here at the English Wikipedia, you will need to opt-in to VisualEditor via Beta Features to see Citoid. Pre-deployment testing can be done here on Beta Labs. (Before you ask: yes, after getting all the bumps smoothed out, the plan is to make it available in the wikitext editor as well. However, that will likely not be for some months yet.)

Happy editing, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: This is being delayed for a few days. Monday (late) is the most likely time now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

All very nice, but from the average editor's perspective just what does this do? I've read thru the links provided, but there's not one hint (or example) about what text an average editor types in & what formatted MOS-compliant text comes out. I have no idea if "Citoid" modifies existing citations or needs the data arranged in a specific way to produce citations that are compatible with {{cite}}, or perhaps some other standard. Or maybe it has nothing to do with creating citations for articles... The people involved assume all of us humble editors know a great deal about Citoid -- which is something I just learned existed. (And if you want people to use it, many of whom are not up to date on the latest Wikimedia software, Foundation employees need to do a much better job of explaining matters like this.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi llywrch,

I apologize for not being clear enough. It's live now, so you can try it out.

1. Open VisualEditor ("Edit", not "Edit source"; opt-in here).
2. Click where you want to add a ref.
3. Click the "book with bookmark" icon (not the unlabeled dropdown menu right next to it; that takes you to the manual options).
4. Paste in your URL.
5. Click the "Look up" button.
6. Get formatted citation back, like this.

It uses citation templates. It'll show you what the citation will look like so you can spot any problems. You can edit the citation afterwards, which is especially useful when websites have gotten redesigned and now all of the information is 'lost' again. (Both BBC News and Google Books were having this problem last week, but I don't know what the current status is for them.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Which still fails to explain just WTF "citoid" is or why I should care. -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Llywrch: When you cite, you enter the URL and citoid fills in all the rest of the data (author, date, title, etc). That's the idea. Saves time for experienced editors, and for new editors helps avoid link rot. It doesn't always work yet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes on the user page, the user talk page, and the user's sandbox?

Changes on the user page, the user talk page, and the user's sandbox?

Personally, I never change a user page, or a user's sandbox, except by mistake, rarely. I do post to a user page, and I occasionally add colons as a matter of formatting.

Recently another editor made some quite correct updates to a draft article well down on my user talk page. As a matter of policy, should other editors do this? What about articles in my sandbox? What do other experienced editors do? What is the policy?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

They shouldn't, unless it's to deal with an attack or a copyright violation, and possibly in the case of a blatant misuse of the page for advertising or as a portal to one's own website. (FYI, your user talk page really isn't a good place for drafting articles, as its purpose is to serve as a venue for people to communicate with you.) If you were drafting the article in the Draft namespace, that would be a different matter. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I did one article in the Draft namespace, and another editor published it before I was finished. You are right, I got started with draft articles on the talk page, and have done more on the sandbox. Is there any easy way to move talk page drafts to the sandbox?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN. This is a wiki. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Automatic citation formatting is on its way

Citoid, the automagic citation filling tool, is on its way at last. It's been up at the French and Italian Wikipedias for a while, with positive feedback overall. The time isn't firmly settled, but Wednesday evening UTC is most likely. This has been one of the most-requested features from experienced editors.

Citoid depends upon good TemplateData. Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial explains how to write the basics by hand, but the TemplateData GUI tool is usually faster and easier. It also depends upon external services like Zotero. If your favorite website isn't working, it probably needs a new Zotero entry. The design is less than ideal. There is a book-with-bookmark button for Citoid, next to a now-unlabeled "Cite" menu for filling in citations the old way.

If you have suggestions on how to improve the design, then please leave your comments where the designers are most likely to see them, at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. If you have any other suggestions or run into problems, then please leave feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. If you would like to see Citoid at another wiki, then you may make that request in Phabricator: by creating a new task under the "Citoid" project. Most requests will probably not be granted for the next couple of weeks, but evidence that TemplateData is current on your main citation templates will likely improve your chances.

Here at the English Wikipedia, you will need to opt-in to VisualEditor via Beta Features to see Citoid. Pre-deployment testing can be done here on Beta Labs. (Before you ask: yes, after getting all the bumps smoothed out, the plan is to make it available in the wikitext editor as well. However, that will likely not be for some months yet.)

Happy editing, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: This is being delayed for a few days. Monday (late) is the most likely time now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

All very nice, but from the average editor's perspective just what does this do? I've read thru the links provided, but there's not one hint (or example) about what text an average editor types in & what formatted MOS-compliant text comes out. I have no idea if "Citoid" modifies existing citations or needs the data arranged in a specific way to produce citations that are compatible with {{cite}}, or perhaps some other standard. Or maybe it has nothing to do with creating citations for articles... The people involved assume all of us humble editors know a great deal about Citoid -- which is something I just learned existed. (And if you want people to use it, many of whom are not up to date on the latest Wikimedia software, Foundation employees need to do a much better job of explaining matters like this.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi llywrch,

I apologize for not being clear enough. It's live now, so you can try it out.

1. Open VisualEditor ("Edit", not "Edit source"; opt-in here).
2. Click where you want to add a ref.
3. Click the "book with bookmark" icon (not the unlabeled dropdown menu right next to it; that takes you to the manual options).
4. Paste in your URL.
5. Click the "Look up" button.
6. Get formatted citation back, like this.

It uses citation templates. It'll show you what the citation will look like so you can spot any problems. You can edit the citation afterwards, which is especially useful when websites have gotten redesigned and now all of the information is 'lost' again. (Both BBC News and Google Books were having this problem last week, but I don't know what the current status is for them.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Which still fails to explain just WTF "citoid" is or why I should care. -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Llywrch: When you cite, you enter the URL and citoid fills in all the rest of the data (author, date, title, etc). That's the idea. Saves time for experienced editors, and for new editors helps avoid link rot. It doesn't always work yet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes on the user page, the user talk page, and the user's sandbox?

Changes on the user page, the user talk page, and the user's sandbox?

Personally, I never change a user page, or a user's sandbox, except by mistake, rarely. I do post to a user page, and I occasionally add colons as a matter of formatting.

Recently another editor made some quite correct updates to a draft article well down on my user talk page. As a matter of policy, should other editors do this? What about articles in my sandbox? What do other experienced editors do? What is the policy?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

They shouldn't, unless it's to deal with an attack or a copyright violation, and possibly in the case of a blatant misuse of the page for advertising or as a portal to one's own website. (FYI, your user talk page really isn't a good place for drafting articles, as its purpose is to serve as a venue for people to communicate with you.) If you were drafting the article in the Draft namespace, that would be a different matter. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I did one article in the Draft namespace, and another editor published it before I was finished. You are right, I got started with draft articles on the talk page, and have done more on the sandbox. Is there any easy way to move talk page drafts to the sandbox?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN. This is a wiki. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Publicizing a discussion on Talk:Bengali people#Proposal

Due to ensued edit war, and continued disparity; we have started a discussion for finalizing a list of people to appear on the collage at {{infobox ethnic group}} in Bengali people article. We need input from wider community for reaching an unbiased consensus. That is why I am canvassing this discussion here. ~ nafSadh did say 03:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Which template defines the "undo" edit notice?

I'm talking about the one that says:

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

I have a suggestion to improve the wording. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Undo-success. Add ?uselang=qqx or &uselang=qqx (if there already is a ? in the url) to the end of a url to see the name of the used messages in the MediaWiki namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you. And in case anyone is interested, I've posted my suggestion for a non-policy impacting wording change on the talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Flurname

Please translate this article de:Flurname — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.143.91 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2015

Please see WP:RFT. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A "national flag" without secondary sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Stop forum shopping, as mentioned below. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan § RfC: Flag of Ryukyu

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Disruptive reverts by Sturmgewehr88

What I ask you to do is simple:

look over the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu and answer to the question: is it OK to put this flag on hundreds or thousands of articles?

This is request-for-comment stuff, but I post this here because, at this stage, no expert knowledge is required to make a judgment. You might be puzzled by details, but I bet they are unimportant. This is a Japan- and history-related topic, but all you need is common sense. I need your third opinions because now I feel like I'm talking to an alien from outer space.

In my earlier posts at the discussion, I assumed that readers were knowledgeable about the Japanese language and history. Here I provide background information.

The flag in question was supposedly used as the national flag of a pre-modern polity called Ryukyu, which was dissolved around the time when Japan embraced the Western notion of national flag. This file has been hosted on Common nearly for a decade. However, this flag has puzzled me (and some other Wikipedians) because it cannot be found in major history books. For example, Okinawa Prefecture, the successor of the pre-modern polity, published the 5 volumes of the History of Okinawa Prefecture (2000–2011, and one volume in preparation) and the 13 volumes of the Visual History of Okinawa Prefecture (1998–2004). Neither series makes mention of the flag. No secondary sources identify this as the national flag of Ryukyu. In my earlier post, I used the following analogy: pick up a book on the history of the United States, and you cannot find the Stars and Stripes. That's what's happening here. Of course, we cannot conclude that this flag has never be the national flag of Ryukyu because that's probatio diabolica. But common sense tells us that a national flag is something we can easily find in the literature. If we cannot, that's not what we consider the national flag. We can safely conclude that we cannot put it on hundreds or thousands of articles because it gives extremely undue weight to the flag.

The above is enough to make a judgment. Before move to the next, I must clarify that what follows does not change the conclusion.

I did serious research on this subject and posted key findings at the Commons image description pages. I suspect some portion of my posts are borderline cases of original research because there I rely on primary, not secondary, sources. But I believe the looser policies of Commons allow me to post them. All I could find was three catalogs published in mainland Japan (i.e., primary sources). In my earlier posts, I explained why they are unreliable, but that's not so important here. Ryukyu is known for its diplomatic negotiations with the U.S., the Netherlands and France in its final years. But the studies on this subject make no mention of the flag. No secondary sources after serious research. We can reconfirm that the flag is not something we consider the national flag.

After I updated the Commons image description page, I started removing the flag from articles. And Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) started RfC to reinstate the flag. The result is what I asked you to read. After the discussion, he started mass-reverts and I opened the AN/I report. I can hardly believe that an educated person interprets the discussion as a green light. So I request for third opinions.

Some notes on Sturmgewehr88. He uses the flag for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Ryukyu task force (located in the Wikipedia namespace, but virtually his personal project). He intensively advertises the task force at talk pages, and you can check the current status here. He may feel that he has passed the point of no return. That's only a speculation. Also, he has a record of accusing me of pushing a fringe theory[2]. So he is supposed to know what fringe theories are. --Nanshu (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please read WP:FORUMSHOP. There's already an RfC and an ANI thread about this exact issue, you even provided links. Bringing up the same issue in multiple places makes it very difficult to follow the logic and determine what the community's opinion actually is, and can be seen as disruptive. I encourage you to close this thread and keep your comments with one of the two other discussions that are already going on about this. Ivanvector (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This is indeed RfC stuff, which is why there is an RfC currently open. Nanshu opened a case at ANI against me for reverting the majority of his mislabeled edits and now, since he's either not gotten the response he wanted or none at all, he's opened a discussion here. This is textbook forumshopping. The issue isn't wether it is the national flag or not (Nanshu himself said he can't prove it's not), it's wether it was ok for him to remove it as a "Wikipedia hoax" or not. It's simple: was it claimed that this was the national flag of Ryukyu before the image was uploaded to Wikipedia? The answer is a definite "yes", which means that this flag didn't originate here nor is a hoax, therefore not a Wikipedia hoax. Again, I have an absolute right to revert him for making mislabeled and/or misleading edit summaries, which he has a history of.

It's funny, because he also has a history of harassment and making personal attacks against people who don't agree with him. Now for the third time that I'm aware of, he doesn't make a single edit in months and suddenly reappears to make sweeping changes to 100+ articles and expects no one to challenge him, and when someone does, he calls them a knowledgeless control freak] or that they have no talent for historiography. He claims at ANi that my reverts are "disruptive edits", that I "[challenge] the way Wikipedia works", and that I "[pose] a real threat to Wikipedia", which is ironic given his past and current behavior.

In regards to WP:RYUKYU, it's as much my personal project in the sense as WP:JAPAN is the personal project of User:Nihonjoe. Yes, I started the taskforce and am the most active contributor there, but so what? The Ryukyu Islands are my main interest on Wikipedia anyway, and I'm not the only one listed on the participants page. And "intensively advertises" is quite a claim, considering that I add other WikiProject/taskforce templates as well (since when is it a bad thing to add or update WikiProject templates on talk pages?). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal: more friendly deletion of newbies contributions

So we know (from studies of volunteer retention) that we are bad in handling newbies; we template them and show them the inhuman side of our project. Yet we also know that with few volunteers, there is no way to change this: telling people to be more friendly to newbies is not going to fly. How about this, then. Instead of deleting their contributions (tests, promo, etc.), how about we move it to their userspace, and leave it there for a few months? We are not paper, userspace is not searchable from search engines so spam fails, and we would make some people less stressed / angry at us if instead of "my content was deleted" they would be in "my contest was send back for revision" instead. And moving is about as simple as deletion... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Userspace is searchable, unless each individual page is set up to deny search spiders: either by the direct use of __NOINDEX__ or by adding a template that includes that. Many of these templates are in Category:Wikipedia templates which apply NOINDEX, although some will only NOINDEX if explicitly told to do so, such as {{user page|noindex=yes}} --Redrose64 (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, and on at least one occasion I have done this. I think Template:Userspace draft is a good template to prevent the page from being searchable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

URL in citation is dead and you have two choices - revised URL or archive.org

I was updating a citation link at GE Consumer & Industrial and came across this case:

• original link was http://www.genewscenter.com/Press-Releases/Calculating-the-Future-GE-Unveils-Platinum-LEED-Certified-Data-Center-a-Sustainable-Investment-Supporting-Global-Business-Growth-32d4.aspx
• original link was dead, but was preserved in archive.org --> https://web.archive.org/web/20140911001748/http://www.genewscenter.com/Press-Releases/Calculating-the-Future-GE-Unveils-Platinum-LEED-Certified-Data-Center-a-Sustainable-Investment-Supporting-Global-Business-Growth-32d4.aspx
• the same press release appears under a new URL published by GE --> http://pressroom.geappliances.com/news/calculating-the-future-ge-unveils-213599

When I say "original link was ... preserved in archive.org", this is not a certainty but a supposition; the original was retrieved on 19 July 2013, but the archived version is from 11 September 2014.

When I say "the same press release appears under a new URL", this again is not a certainty but a supposition ... inline photo in the old version has been replaced by a right-margin image gallery, for instance.

Let's assume that I've carefully vetted the content of the article on wikipedia against both the available online pages, and either one will work in supporting the article.

Is it a purely stylistic matter which you would choose in this case? Or would you go with the archive.org version, as it is "closer to original"? Or would you go with the new GE version, as this is placed in a more up-to-date site context? Or would you put both? In the present case, I chose the archive.org version.

I don't think there is any policy or guideline which covers this particular bit of pedantry, but it does come up from time to time when you are fighting link rot battles and I thought I would just push this out there for come comments.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the information in the new link verify the information in the article? If so, use the new URL. --Jayron32 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive.org is not always available, sometimes because pages were not preserved there at the time the information was present. I have proposed in the past that we should automate triggering archive.org to create an archive when a crawlable page is linked on Wikipedia, and then use that page, since it will remain stable thereafter. bd2412 T 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on guidelines regarding list items

Publicizing an RfC on the Film Wikiproject regarding notability of items on List articles (hopefully this is the correct section). More input is appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Thelma Coyne Long died 16 april acording to Google. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure quite where on Google you are seeing this, but in any case there isn't much that Wikipedia can do about mistakes on Google. If you wish to point out to Google their error, you could quote the source given in the Wikipedia reference, and you could also tell Google about the numerous sources (found in a Google search) which are dated before 16 April and which report the lady's death. I have reverted your edit to the Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, thank you for calling your error to our attention, as it might have gone unnoticed longer otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Experiment in the works

Quick heads-up: Several editors have suggested testing VisualEditor on wiki, rather than something like usertesting.com with non-editors. It looks like User:EpochFail is going to run a short, real-world test. Nothing will change in your account, and logged-out editors will not be part of this test. A barebones draft is at m: Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/May 2015 study. In the meantime, if you’re interested in testing, please opt in via Beta Features and leave feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. The new automagic mw:Citoid tool (paste in a URL like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25609764 and get a fully formatted citation template back) isn't perfect and doesn't cover all possible sources, but it is pretty awesome when it works. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

URLs in citations

Is there any standard for using URLs in citations when the link is to a subscription site via a specific library login? For instance, this takes the reader to the Wellcome Library (through which I accessed the information) and is of no use to readers who aren't members. This one does the same, to the City of Westminster Library. The sites accessed via Wellcome and Westminster do not provide stable URLs of their own as, say, JSTOR does. What should one do in such circumstances? Tim riley talk 18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would provide two refs. On the subs-only one, remember to set |subscription=yes, see Template:Cite journal#Subscription or registration required. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ocaasi with WP:The Wikipedia Library might have some ideas for you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Great question. If you are linking to a particular library, you can use the |via parameter, such as |via=Wellcome Library (which is distinct from |publisher= ). Also use the subscription required in that case. Ideally you also find and provide an 'open web' url that is [more] generally accessible. I would do so in the same citation. You can check out some of the citation examples on pages like WP:HighBeam. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

!vote strength

Do closers weigh the stated strength of each !vote? Is there a progression, as Keep, KEEP, Strong keep, STRONG KEEP? I saw one today that said, all boldface, STRONG KEEP, have never felt more strongly. Seriously. If I don't have a somewhat strong opinion, I don't !vote; so should I begin all my !votes with the word Strong? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a recognized level of vote strength, except in the term of Speedy but even then Speedy should only be used in blatantly obvious cases for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cnstimes. The use of strong and any variation is a tactic(not necessarily purposeful) by commenters to either sway others or emphasize their position. The vote should be backed up by policy or previous consensus on the same topic otherwise it is just words and should probably be disregarded as not adding to the discussion at hand.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote, so there is no vote strength. Only reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments matter. The bold text is just there to give you a general impression of what course of action editors recommend. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Meanders off-topic - collapsing to stay on topic

It's not a vote, hence the ! (Boolean NOT symbol) before the word "vote". ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"It's not a vote, so [...]" seemed like a nice way to start my feedback, seeing we agree it's not a vote. (I know about the boolean not symbol; I'm a programmer. By the way, I'm on IRC a lot, where bots are being addressed with exclamation point commands. If I want to vote there, I use !vote. ;) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread you. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• On IRC the ! symbol is not indicative of "not" in the programing sense. It is actually a pling or bang command to indicate to the bot that what is following is intended to be read by the bot as a command (assuming the bot knows that command and the annoying ones say "I don't know what blah is" (it's only annoying when there are multiple bots in a channel with difference command sets that all use the bang symbol)). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine you are trying to tell Mandruss more about IRC bots, so you must be talking to me. I did not write that, on IRC, "!" is indicative of "not" in the programming sense. Everything you write is old news to me. I've created various IRC bots in multiple languages. The sole reason I mentioned IRC bots is as an example of how !vote can mean something else in a different context. I really hope we're done posting in this sub-thread. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Some users (I try to be one) will comment on matters they WP:DGAF about. I think the idea of a strong vote is to be the opposite of weak vote. A "weak keep" indicates that the user sees a reason to keep the article, but does not especially care if it's kept, and probably will never edit it beyond maybe reverting vandalism (if they add it to their watchlist at all). I'd recommend saving strong keep for cases where you plan on improving the article beyond saving it from deletion.

Likewise, strong delete would indicate that the user is likely to hold the article to Vogon level standards with regard to policies and guidelines and nominate it for deletion or redirection again for any technicality; and a weak delete would usually indicate that the user doesn't think the subject deserves an article at this point, but could in the future. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that closers do consider that, in addition to the rationale following it? Seems like little more than an I just (don't) like it prefix to me. What counts should be the strength of your argument, not the intensity of your feelings on the matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't quite be taking into account feelings as the likelihood that the article is going to receive any further work. If an article has no sources that demonstrate notability, but everyone says "weak keep" for some reason, they're probably not going to find any sources for it and so it's safe to delete it despite an apparent consensus to keep. If an article is on the fence, but there's an equal amount of "(regular or weak) delete" and "strong keep" votes, the strong keeps will likely give the article the work it needs to avoid deletion (though they should cite the sources that would be used to improve the article in the discussion). Many users simply don't work on stuff they don't care about, so "I will improve this article" does mean more than "it could stay, but I don't care." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is a confusing question. Do !votes have a level of strength? For me, as a person who has closed discussions, STRONG KEEP holds no more value than weak keep. However, a person who votes weak keep: Deleting this for <reason stated in OP> goes against <insert policy or common practice here> in that <valid example of why it is inconsistent with the cited policy>. Not to mention, this is a well sourced - [http://nytimes.com/story/...][http://washingtonpost.com/...][http://bbc.uk/articles/...] for example, and neutrally written article with no obvious copyright violations{{copyvios|page=pagename}} has a much stronger vote than the person who says STRONG KEEP: How could anyone even consider deleting this wonderful article full of inspiration and wonder?. I tend to "score" each persons vote, they get 1 point per point they make and one for their summary !vote. So, in my example, !vote number 1 gets +6 points towards keep (+1 for their !vote, +1 for their citing how it would violate a policy, +2 for the verified claim it is sourced (assuming the links are valid proof (this is scaled +1 for 1-2 sources, +2 for 3-6 sources, +3 for 7+ sources)), +1 for pointing out it is neutrally written and +1 for pointing out there are no CVs as far as they know) whereas !vote number 2 only gets +1 point towards keep (for taking the time to !vote and summarize their thoughts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technical 13 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What about people who !vote Delete per nom? Do you then re-add the nominator's points? What if there are a dozen people who merely agree with the nomination, and one who votes the other way and throws out a wall of arguments. bd2412 T 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Points can only be made once. It's not the people or the entries getting the points, it's the points made getting points. So, if user 3 comes along and says Keep: Per !vote 1, deleting this for <reason stated in OP> goes against <insert policy or common practice here> in that <valid example of why it is inconsistent with the cited policy>. This is well sourced - [http://timemagzine.com/2014/August/...][http://blogspot.com/Randys_radical_blog/...][http://Some-primary-source.com/advert3.htm], neutrally written article, and has no obvious copyright violations, then that !vote would get +2 points towards keep (+1 for taking the time to !vote, and +1 for the one new RS they added to the discussion, no more since the other points were already made). Delete: per nom is +1 for delete (for taking the time to !vote and summarize their thoughts) Delete: Violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX and is not reliably sourced (and there are no sources to be found on Google, Bing, or Yahoo). gets +3 for delete (+1 for taking the time to !vote, +1 for pointing out is violates a policy, +1 for showing they spend time checking xx search engines and could find no sources making it more probable good sources don't currently exit). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      • What if we're not talking about something as defined as a keep/delete vote but a dispute over style, for example over which of two sections should go first in an article? Does each participant in the discussion need to make a unique point about why the section on aspect X should go before the section on aspect Y? bd2412 T 18:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I feel like you're just trollolololing me now, but in the interest of good faith, unique points earn points, showing up and saying something earns a point, and those points show me a general consensus. If the discussion leans way to one side in points then that is the consensus. If the discussion seems to be a nail bitter and neck and neck the whole way through, it is a no consensus situation and that's okay too. Everyone brushes it off and goes to work on something else perhaps to revisit the idea at a later time. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Speaking as an admin, when closing discussions, I generally ignore the emphases such as "Strong". What I tend to look for in assessing consensus, in order are: 1) Overall vote strength of the discussion. If 20 people voted, and 18 voted "Keep", it's probably a keep, unless shenanigans (rampant sock/SPA problems) are happening. 2) Strength of rationales: comes in to play most frequently with closer discussions. If the discussion is closer to 50/50, but one side has a much stronger rationale, while the other rationale is spurious, go with the better, more sound rationale. If both sides have equally strong arguments, default to "no consensus" 3) Trend: Is the discussion trending a certain way. Early votes may have been based on different evidence, if I see lots of people changing their votes, or new votes trending a certain way, that can weigh in as well. Ultimately, however, when people add histrionics to their vote, it doesn't actually improve the weight of the vote. On the contrary, when someone says STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE I CAN IMAGINE AND IF YOU THINK DIFFERENTLY YOU'RE STUPID in giant, bold, red flashing letters, I tend to ignore that vote as likely not rational. The more emotional a vote is, the less likely it is to be based on rational thought processes, so the less strength I give it. --Jayron32 18:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Future air dates exempt from verifiability and original research?

In my day to day activity, I normally remove future air dates of broadcast anime television series that do not cite a reliable, published source. However, editors continue to add these dates back in. Recent, Wonchop reverted such a removal makes the claim that because broadcasts are on a regular schedule, references to future air dates are not needed unless there is a schedule change.[3] My position was that all information must be verifiable through a reliable, published sources and that future air dates are no exception. Wonchop once against restores the future air dates, but the source he provides only verifies the next air date, but not the dates of the rest of the series.[4] He against asserts that because the series is on a regular schedule, requiring sources for future air dates is not need. Does this compile with everyone else view of verifiability, or is calculating future air dates a form of original research since those dates have not yet been published and are subject to change? —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Future air dates are subject to change, regardless of schedules, even when episodes are almost certain to air. The TV project always requires citations for future air dates, but even then we still get the occasional change. There is no reason not to provide citations because air dates are easily cited. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Short answer...they need to be reliably sourced. There is no such thing as a "regular schedule" for TV. They have winter breaks, summer breaks, and to try and predict when they may take a random week of (which is not a schedule change, but a scheduled break) is impossible without a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't that long ago that a number of anime series were delayed in Japan at short notice due to various reasons, which should be enough to show that airdates are not guaranteed even if you can make a reasonable assumption (which violates OR of course). Although personally I don't think including a date, regardless of sourcing should be done until after it has aired if it's an episode during the series. If it's the start and finish date of a as-yet unaired series and can be reliably sourced, fair enough , but do we really need to include dates for individual unaired episodes?

You could set up an editnotice, containing {{future episodes editnotice}} --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That should be on every "List of episodes" page and season article although, ironically, TV Guide is often not reliable. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And given the context here (Japanese television), completely useless. However, this does put my mind at ease that my removal of future air dates without a direct source is within Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. But that I don't want to continue an edit war on Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha ViVid over those future air dates, anyone else care to enlighten Wonchop on the matter? —Farix (t | c) 16:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not completely useless, since the template can be customised - see for example Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Doctor Who serials. To do that, I gave it provision to search Radio Times instead of TV Guide with this edit. The same thing can be done for other listings magazines; the main thing that you need to do is to decide on a reliable Japanese listings magazine, and find its search URL. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've put in an edit request to remove TV Guide from displaying by default. TV Guide shouldn't be displayed by default because is US-centric publication and it's presence in the template is a point of systemic bias. —Farix (t | c) 16:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically the next episode's date is usually supplied in TV listings (though I'll admit there's no real easy way or referencing these kinds of things) and the rest are hidden until the following episode's revealed anyway and are only filled out for the sake of easier editing. There's generally an indication of when the next episode airs following an episode's airing (even in a listing or the show blatantly telling us which day of the week it airs on), and some schedules can also list episodes and there titles for several weeks ahead. Far as I can tell, the weekly schedules have been generally reliable, and there's usually something mentioning if there's a change to that schedule (eg. if a show has a week long break due to football or New Year's). In the case of ViVid, it's website states that it airs every Friday so there's no reason to assume it won't at present. Wonchop (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability states, "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." WP:No original research states, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." To calculate a future air date by adding 7 days to the previous air date is, by definition, original research. Since the dates calculated cannot be cited to a previously published reliable source, it also cannot be verified. Just because some dates are temporarily hidden doesn't mean they are except from these two core polices. If something cannot be referenced to a reliable, published source, it should not be on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 20:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the encyclopedia should not make predictions. Doesn't WP:Crystal cover that? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Pointing to that policy has been completely useless in the past. In part because future air dates aren't specifically mentioned and editors adding them believe that they are "almost certain to take place". —Farix (t | c) 11:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as there is a reliable source for the information, it's perfectly acceptable to list a future airdate in an article. They are not exempt from WP:OR and WP:V. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Numeric(al) order... a struggle to find things; missing links and non-existing pages.

Hopefully I'm making the right choice by posting this here instead of at Wikipedia:Help desk, because the following goes a bit beyond how to use or edit Wikipedia. It all started with me thinking

If alphabet(-)ical is "according to the sequence of the letters of the alphabet", then how would I say number(-)ical? It is not numerical because that is "of or pertaining to numbers" and not (enough) about a sequence/order. Nor am I looking for "numerical order" or "numeric order", because those would be the equivalents of "alphabetical order" (with the word "order").

So I visited alphabetical to look at its See also section. Alphabetical redirects to alphabet. At Alphabet, it has one hatnote; a link to Alphabet (disambiguation). However, the lead of Alphabet (disambiguation) says "Alphabet or The Alphabet may also refer to:" without "Alphabetical", and aforementioned disambiguation page also does not include Alphabetical order. So I used the URL bar to manually visit Alphabetical order. Its Alphabetical order#See also section mentions only Collation, and at Collation the lead includes the text "numerical order". That text links to number. So then I was wondering, does numerical order exist, and it does not; not even to redirect to something. Then at Sorting I saw the text "the order is alphabetical", which refers to an alphabetical order. At Help:Sorting it says "the order is numeric", doesn't that refer to a numeric order (note: "numeric", without "al")? That too is a page that does not exist; not even a redirect to something. I really think I should not have ran into some of a things described above. However, I don't know what would be good solutions for the various issues, so I'm asking for feedback here. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're looking for a descriptor of a linear order rather than a lexicographic order? Praemonitus (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, but this is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for an editor who understands why it is - and hopefully agrees with - my opinion that Wikipedia needs several changes to fix the various issues I ran into while searching for answers. As the heading of this section summarizes, there are missing links and non-existing pages where there should be links and pages. There are various issues I point to in the text I wrote. The first, to give you an example, is that a reader who visits alphabetical is being forwarded to alphabet, but the hatnote of that target page only points to Alphabet (disambiguation) where the lead only mentions Alphabet and The Alphabet, and the body has no link to Alphabetical order. A Alphabetical order#See also with only one link. A link at Collation from "numerical order" text to number. Missing numerical order and numeric order pages. It's not about what is the/a correct answer to my question; the problem is that Wikipedia is making it a struggle for me to find things. I created this section because there are various issues and I don't know what would be good solutions for them. Of course I have some ideas, like I could simply add Alphabetical order to Alphabet (disambiguation), but I'm not sure that would be the best path to take. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are driving at, but I feel you should be WP:Bold and make the fixes yourself, inviting comment from others in a WP:BRD session. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo's succession plan

In summer 2009 Jimbo declared that in case of his untimely incapacitation "the Arbcom is authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50+1 vote of the community" & that he would "amend that succession plan from time to time upon recommendation of the Arbcom and Community". Could anyone say when he amended it last? 54.152.112.11 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I asked this question at Jimbo's talk page on April the 3rd, but received no reply. 54.152.112.11 (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't need a succession plan, since he doesn't actively direct anything here. He's somewhat a figurehead. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Proton therapy talk page has a bizzare SPAM paragraph

Talk:Proton_therapy

[removed unnecessary copy of spam Thincat (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ]

1) How do we delete this paragraph? 2) How do we STOP this individual from posting this crap again?

Bgordski (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It has now been removed from the talk page. I expect it was a competitor trying to damage his trade. Thincat (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Ancient Near East poor rendering of pictures on the main page

On at least three accounts it shows the wiki syntax like: Image:|140x170px|left|Relief from the palace of Ashurnasilpal II in Nimrud instead of a proper image. Selected article, Selected picture, and Did you know entries. I'm posting here because nobody acted there. Cheers, --Zvizdanche (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zvizdanche: You posted to Portal talk:Ancient Near East#Selected article's picture rendering eight minutes before here. That is an extremely short time to wait but the page does have low activity so there might not come an answer. I currently see images everywhere at Portal:Ancient Near East but the page is coded to transclude some randomly selected subpages and some of those are missing their image. Your example was removed as far back as 2008.[5] All of Portal:Ancient Near East/Selected article, Portal:Ancient Near East/Selected picture, Portal:Ancient Near East/DYK and Portal:Ancient Near East/Selected biography are missing one or more images. I'm not fixing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Biotecnika Magazine

Naming convention, content of user page, and possible COI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please move to WP:COIN. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing (yet again)

What, if anything, do we know about these folks (getyourwiki.com)? Are they disclosed as paid editors? If not, has there been any investigation to uncover who might be editing with an inappropriate agenda on their behalf? - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For fun I contacted them. I got an email reply from "Jolie Short, Wikipedia Consultant" and a phone number in the US (+15128883xxx) to discuss details and pricing. Of course I cannot check if that is a real name or person. There is an entry on LinkedIn for a person with that name, working for "Status Labs". Status Labs is also mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-02-19/News_and_notes . --Malyacko (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that on this page there is a quote from one Scott Jacobson who might work here. So the diff might be interesting. A Who-Is Shows us that the site was registered on 15 Jan 2015. I don't know if that means anything but... BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I also emailed them and received a reply from someone who works at Status Labs. I rather suspect that GetYourWiki is simply WikiPR in disguise. Sam Walton (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia store relaunch

Hello everyone,

The Wikipedia store has been relaunched. We have redesigned the website and also introduced new items!

The Wikipedia store looks forward to collaborating with the community, vendors, designers, artists, and people with similar visions to create meaningful merchandise for our community and readers. In the near future, you can expect creative representations of Wikipedia and its sister projects with these collaborations. Our vision for our merchandise is to motivate you and people around you to help spread knowledge via Wikimedia projects.

As a reminder, the store is engaged in giveaway programs rewarding volunteers, supporting editathons and engaging in hackathons and other community conferences. As usual, all sales support and reward contributors all over the world.

Spread the knowledge about the Wikipedia store and please follow @wikipediastore on Twitter and Instagram! VShchepakina (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not put it in the sidebar, please. I've seen the testwiki: test, and the Meta UI is already flooded and drowned by WMF spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Greetings,

I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Language --> Add Links

I tried to use the 'Add links' entry under the Languages section (at right) to add non-English language links to an article. However, it gives me the error message 'You need to be logged in on this wiki and in the central data repository to use this feature'. Well I am logged on to the central data repository and yet I still receive this message. This seems completely non-beneficial; it could at least have a help link so I can navigate the correct process. Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: This q might be more suited to WP:VPT. However, when you visit this link, do you appear to be logged in or out? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I show as logged in, although I don't have a user or talk page on that site. Praemonitus (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes when going from one wiki (like English Wikipedia) to another (like Commons), I appear to be logged out, because all I see top right are the "Create account / log in" links. It usually means that the cookie didn't get through. Forcing the page to reload usually fixes it, although on occasion I do need to log in separately. Having (or not having) a user or user talk page should be immaterial. If you get these links (red or blue), and the user page link shows "Praemonitus" and not something else, you're logged in on Wikidata, which is where the interlanguage links are now held. Make sure that is the case, and try again. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it still fails. I did a forced reload (ctrl-f5) on both the Wikipedia and Wikidata sites, and the Wikidata site reports that I am logged in. It appears to be broken, for me at least. I tested it on another page that already has language links, and that does work. Hence it appears to be an issue with pages that have the 'Add links' link. (I confirmed that is the case with the The Thinker (horse) article.) Praemonitus (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I sent a note to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Language --> Add Links. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It works for me. Does https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:NewItem?site=enwiki&page=The+Thinker+%28horse%29 work for you? That's what I get in Firefox by right-clicking "Add links" on The Thinker (horse) and selecting to open the link in a new tab. The process is different from the small box which should appear when "Add links" is left-clicked. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that link brought up a new item editor, as does right-clicking to open in a new tab. However, left-clicking still fails. Can I take it this is a bug? Praemonitus (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

USA train pictures

Commons:Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 (clcean up2) has a lot of train pictures taken in America. These are taken by Peter Van den Bossche and downloaded from Flicker. I already classified a lot of his European pictures but I am not familiar with the USA scene. Could someone help with classifying these pictures? Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Searching for URLs in article space

There is a way to find all usages of, say, nytimes.com in article-space but I cannot recall it offhand. Anyone here know? A WP page that lists those sorts of helpful search aids in one location would be desirable too, if one exists. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure you can limit it by namespace but Special:LinkSearch.©Geni (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

^ That's the one Tarc wants. Special:Search does a pretty good job of this now also, and you can use regex if you want there. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep that was the one. Rooting out some leftover copyvios, thanks. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly recreated user page

I have discovered a user Allen terry (talk · contribs) who is persistently recreating the page User:Melanie Specht. This is a user page of a user that doesn't exist, and is being deleted as U2 every time it is created. What I would normally do in a case where a page keeps being recreated is request its create protection. However, since it's a user page, I'm afraid it would present a problem in case someone comes by and wants to register that name. I have two options:

• Request create protection on that page. This will stop the persistent disruptive editing on that page, but will present a problem if someone registers that username and wants to create their user page.
• Register that username myself, and create a page to go along with it (to disclose its connection to me), and request that the page be protected. If someone wants to register that name, they can contact me (how?) and I'll have the username of that account changed so that they can register it. More complicated, but doable.

What should I do? Gparyani (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Right now he is blocked for 7 days. He can't do anything. This isn't the only page he has done this with. He makes userpages out of articles and says he is using them to practice editing. If he comes back and does the same thing again, there is a good possibility he will be indefinitely blocked. -- GB fan 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: See below for combined response. Gparyani (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about an Edit Filter to stop them creating pages in user space, except for their own?. - X201 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@X201: Given that he's created "test" pages in the userpages of many users, this may be beneficial. However, I'll only request this filter if he does this after his block expires and/or uses sockpuppets to evade the block. Gparyani (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why, instead of deleting them, does someone not move his test pages to his own userspace? E.g. User:Allen terry/Melanie Specht? That way he can experiment all he wants, and maybe he'll get the picture that drafts and sandboxes go in HIS userspace. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Because they're eligible for deletion under criterion G2. Also, some have been moved, but have later been deleted while in his own userspace. Gparyani (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gparyani: No, they're not eligible under G2. G2 "does not apply to pages in the user namespace".~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Sorry, I meant U2 :( Gparyani (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gparyani: But if we moved them to his own userspace they wouldn't be eligable for U2 either, because they'd no longer be pages of non-existent users. (see my original comment) P.S. That said, looking at his talk page, I see others have tried that approach to no avail. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Then why were they deleted while they were in his own userspace, then? Also, the redirect would be eligible for U2 unless it is moved without leaving a redirect. Gparyani (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly recreated user page

I have discovered a user Allen terry (talk · contribs) who is persistently recreating the page User:Melanie Specht. This is a user page of a user that doesn't exist, and is being deleted as U2 every time it is created. What I would normally do in a case where a page keeps being recreated is request its create protection. However, since it's a user page, I'm afraid it would present a problem in case someone comes by and wants to register that name. I have two options:

• Request create protection on that page. This will stop the persistent disruptive editing on that page, but will present a problem if someone registers that username and wants to create their user page.
• Register that username myself, and create a page to go along with it (to disclose its connection to me), and request that the page be protected. If someone wants to register that name, they can contact me (how?) and I'll have the username of that account changed so that they can register it. More complicated, but doable.

What should I do? Gparyani (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Right now he is blocked for 7 days. He can't do anything. This isn't the only page he has done this with. He makes userpages out of articles and says he is using them to practice editing. If he comes back and does the same thing again, there is a good possibility he will be indefinitely blocked. -- GB fan 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: See below for combined response. Gparyani (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about an Edit Filter to stop them creating pages in user space, except for their own?. - X201 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@X201: Given that he's created "test" pages in the userpages of many users, this may be beneficial. However, I'll only request this filter if he does this after his block expires and/or uses sockpuppets to evade the block. Gparyani (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why, instead of deleting them, does someone not move his test pages to his own userspace? E.g. User:Allen terry/Melanie Specht? That way he can experiment all he wants, and maybe he'll get the picture that drafts and sandboxes go in HIS userspace. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Because they're eligible for deletion under criterion G2. Also, some have been moved, but have later been deleted while in his own userspace. Gparyani (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gparyani: No, they're not eligible under G2. G2 "does not apply to pages in the user namespace".~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Sorry, I meant U2 :( Gparyani (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gparyani: But if we moved them to his own userspace they wouldn't be eligable for U2 either, because they'd no longer be pages of non-existent users. (see my original comment) P.S. That said, looking at his talk page, I see others have tried that approach to no avail. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Then why were they deleted while they were in his own userspace, then? Also, the redirect would be eligible for U2 unless it is moved without leaving a redirect. Gparyani (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson will continue during the voting. Nominations for the Board of Trustees will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.

The FDC Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. Click here to vote. Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question. Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 FDC election page, the 2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page, and the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Reverting, newcomers, and old folks

I've been contributing since 2004. I've contributed a fair amount, and so far this year, about 10% of my carefully-crafted edits have been reverted. [6][7][8] Is this par? Are my old-school sensibilities so far out of touch with the modern ways? Restructure, improve, build upon - but preferably not revert unless it's wrong or detrimental. And while I can agree that those contributions weren't necessarily in keeping with featured article status, I obviously thought they improved the articles a little bit.

I'm not really worried about these three edits so much as I am about what reverts such as those might do to our editor pool. If our standards are so high going in that a casual contributor cannot participate without rebuke, then we will have no more casual contributors. Should we make it a little harder to revert? (Probably not because those tools are indispensable for fighting vandalism.) Should we highlight that "revert" and "undo" operations are chiefly for vandalism and edit tests? What else can we do to make Wikipedia a friendlier place for the occasional editor? -- ke4roh (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the casual, occasional editor is that they tend to make bad edits. It's a choice between content quality and friendliness. If one chooses to edit without learning something about editing principles, I don't see how they can reasonably be offended by an 80% revert rate. And yet, most are. Despite giving this a lot of thought, I don't see a solution if we're to continue to allow casual editing. We might consider toning down the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" marketing slogan a bit, since it's very misleading. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

ke4roh, yes, things have gotten that bad. Yes, that's the #1 cause of the declining population of active editors: we get willing newbies, and we promptly chase them off. When someone has already made thousands of edits, like you, then they tend to put up with it, but when it happens to new people, they leave.

There are small things that could be done, such as using User:EpochFail/NICE to remind reverters to think about what they're doing, especially when they want to revert trivial changes, such as whether a location ought to be linked as "[[Palmdale, California]]" or as "[[Palmdale, California|Palmdale]], California", which nobody can honestly is an example of maintaining "quality" rather than "imposing my personal preference". If we were serious about this (and I'm sorry to say that we've not been), we could even fix up User:EpochFail's well-researched script to be a gadget that is enabled by default.

There are important things that we could do, like reminding each other that reputable daily newspapers aren't required to cite their sources (just like the last question in the FAQ has said for years) and that the actual WP:BURDEN to prove that something is verifiable (NB verifiable, not 100% scientifically proven) is fully met by providing a source to any source that seems reasonably reliable (such as any news story in any reputable daily newspaper). We could try to find people who actually collaborate and build upon other people's edits, rather than reverting, and thank them and encourage them and maybe even try to act like them.

Finally, there might be some technical things that we could do. I think that a good deal of ham-fisted reverting would stop if you could tick a box to revert only the change to this paragraph while keeping the change to another line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, there's been a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the motto ought to be "the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing. I agree with what you both said above. I've only been editing for a week and I already want to quit based on what I have seen. I haven't gotten any nasty messages yet but I have looked at a lot of edit summaries and seen a lot of talk page messages and interactions and its not a very appealing nor is it inviting. I saw a user get threatened and blocked earlier today by an admin for 60 days for what I would assume was at worst a snide comment or at best a lighthearted compliment. I have also seen several people just in the last 2 weeks acknowledge there are problems as you did, so I wonder, if people know there are problems, why not do something to fix the rather than watch them continue? Is there a mechanism or group in place in this site to advocate for changes or act as the champion for improvement projects? Giraffasaurus (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Giraffasaurus: A 60-day block is not normally handed out for a small matter. I've checked through about 12 hours worth of the block log, and 595 of the last 1000 blocks were for 60 days, and all of those 60-day blocks were imposed by ProcseeBot (talk · contribs) (examples); see its user page for further information. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Redrose and after a little more review it seems the user does have some history, even then though, I see nothing that would warrant a 2 month block and I do not see where the statement was a personal attack or harassment. The link to the block I am referring to is here. In any case, this is only one example of many I have seen in a very short period of time. It just seems like the site isn't very social or collaborative to one another and given that it was mentioned as such above and referred to in other discussions on the site in the last couple weeks, I would get the impression that enough people agree that its a problem to think that they probably have a point. For what its worth also, I looked at the blocks for that Procsee bot and most of those are pointless blocks of IP's (proxies or otherwise) that have never edited. It should be noted that it used to be a trait of hackers to use proxies but more and more places are using them for security reasons to protect and compartmentalize their own systems. So IMO the site shouldn't be blocking something "preventatively" unless they can prove that its actually preventing something. Just my opinion. Giraffasaurus (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

When someone is blocked repeatedly, each block tends to be longer than the one before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but blocking someone for 2 months seems like an awful long time for something that doesn't even appear to be Vandalism, Personal attacks or harassment as the block summary indicates. Anyway, its just an opinion and a perception. If someone blocked me for even a month and accused me of harassment for a comment like the one that was left, I would not be back. I may just be naive, but I do not think a block of more than a week should be done except in rare circumstances like threats, an actual personal attack or vandalism. This just doesn't rise to that level to me. It just seems like people are too eager to block people for minor things rather than being willing to work collaboratively that's all. Giraffasaurus (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so the block in question wasn't 60 days (or even 2 months) - it was 59 days - that's why I couldn't find it in the block log. I see that the block log entry includes a link Attacks and bating. As WhatamIdoing notes, repeat offenders typically get a block that is longer than the previous one; in this case, the previous block was 1 month, and had expired less than two months earlier. When an admin blocks a user, they have three ways of setting the length of the block: they can enter a time and date for the expiry; they can enter a duration (as in this case, 59 days); or they can select a length from a list. In that selection list, 1 month is followed by 3 months, so it's probable that the blocking party wished a duration in between those values, and entered 59 days manually. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 - Fair enough, I understand the reasoning and I won't dwell on it, but I still think a 59 day block for something as trivial as the comment in question is a bad faith assumption. I read the editors blocks and the edits that seemed to lead to them and frankly they just do not seem that bad. It just doesn't seem to benefit this website by blocking people for that long of a period of time for what seems to be a misunderstanding and bad faith assumption of what the user meant in the statement. Do people not know how to simply ignore the comment? I do not see anyone telling the editor not to edit that page or interact with the person, I see there is a restriction on an extremely broad topic area that frankly can be linked to nearly anything with some imagination. It just seems to me there are better, more mature ways to address the situation than to simply block them for 2 months in the apparent hope that action drives them from the site. Which may be a bad faith perception on my part, but that's what it looks like to me when someone is blocked for more than a 1 week. Anything longer than that is only going to punish a long term contributor, not some vandal or troll who can just throw the account away and create a new one whenever they want. Anyway, this is sort of a tangent from the topic at hand anyway, I just wanted to note my perception to these types of situations (that seem to occur commonly) as someone who is new here. It just doesn't seem to be a very positive environment and I frankly do not know how long I am going to stay myself. I just see too much negatively and ugliness between interactions all over. The comments being left in the drafts, the comments being left in blocks, on talk pages, etc. Its all over. Its pretty clear there no one is making much of an attempt to keep things civil and that reflects in the decreasing interests in the site. Anyway, again, just my 2 cents. Take it for what its worth. Giraffasaurus (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Script

@WhatamIdoing: FYI: I have a small (and experimental) script (based on a feature from AWB) which lets us undo part of the changes in a diff preview, by double clicking on them while pressing CTRL. Helder 20:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Helder. Does that require AWB? I'm a Mac-only person, so AWB doesn't work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Not really. It is just that I wanted to have on diff pages a functionality which I first saw in AWB, so I started that user script. Helder 15:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Helder. Does it have to be installed globally? I added it locally, and I don't know if it doesn't work if it's en.wp-only or if I've done something else wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It works on enwiki, as far as I know. And you can install it only here if you want. How did you test it? Try to make a change to some page, and click on show changes. Then, use CTRL+double click in some of the changes displayed in the diff, to undo them. Helder 18:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's my test diff, Helder.[9] It should be easy to undo just part of it. There's no visible difference after installing the script (did I install it correctly?). When I control-double-click on something to undo, I get the same browser menu as if I control-click on any webpage, or any other part of this page. Would you mind trying it out, and undoing any part of that diff? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: currently, it only works when you have an edit box below the diff, i.e., when you press "Show changes" to see a diff. Try again on this preview, where the edit area is visible. Helder 12:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Contact us - Readers for the first time. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Just hit the 'edit' button on the top right of the page, make the correction, and hit 'Save page'." Wow! How cool is that? But not a hint about Wikipedia policies, or the fact that you're likely to get reverted if you don't follow them. Going in with those rosy expectations, I'd be quickly turned off too. It's a good thing I didn't read that before I started editing. (In fairness, it does continue with "If you want to learn more about editing, try our help pages." Read: But if you don't want to, that's ok, it's not that important. We just want you to have fun!) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to require people to spend several hours studying rules before they make their first contribution? It's a defensible position, so long as you're willing to own the negatives (dramatic drop in new editors, worsening the ratio of dedicated POV pushers to disinterested volunteers) as well as the positives (less work for RecentChanges patrollers if everyone is perfect from their first edit). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but the expectations could be made more realistic, and most of those scared off by those expectations would be ones that would do more harm than good anyway. Not all editors are contributors. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, I agree that quality should be improved where possible, but I don't believe there is a natural trade-off between quality and friendliness. A revert is a rebuke. It should be used sparingly and with good explanation. If the contribution was rough around the edges, it should be cleaned up rather than undone. If the source was less than the ideal for WP:RS, it should be noted and further effort expended to find more adequate citations. But really, unless it is useless, it should not be reverted. I would hope that's common courtesy (but I fear it is more uncommon these days). Behind every user on Wikipedia (except the bots) is a human who seemed to think their contribution was good for something. WP:AGF. So let's try to work with the contributions rather than reverting them. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an example. This person didn't like the races "black" and "white" mentioned in this article, so they removed them as if it was a trivial change. They had no clue that this might be something they should discuss first, that they were making a controversial edit in a controversial article with little experience or policy awareness. The edit wasn't "rough around the edges", it was just wrong. There was no way to improve it, it simply had to be reverted. In my experience, most casual and newbie edits are like that in one way or another. Why? Because we do our best to hide the true Wikipedia from them, hoping that we won't scare them off. This is a misguided strategy that backfires and produces the opposite of the desired result. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, I agree with that particular revert. I probably would have accompanied it with a personal note on the user's talk page explaining that the races are important to the context of the article and not all consumers of Wikipedia can see the pictures to get the rest of the context with an abbreviated version of same in the revert's edit summary. Considering that user persistently removed the info, I would have escalated to warning for unconstructive edits. If it seemed to be a problem with multiple users making the same sort of change, I would have made special mention on the article's talk page. Yes, all that process slows down the fundamental contributions, but it is important if we want to help people learn how to be editors. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand. What it boils down to is that, in the end, I'm here as an editor, not a teacher. I lack both the teaching skills and the patience for the latter. latter. Editors who wish to teach are free to sign up as mentors in the Adopt-a-user program, and new users who need teachers are free to sign up as adoptees. For the most part, new editors need to take the initiative for their own editing education, as I did, as most of us who have been here for any length of time did, and Wikipedia needs to do more to steer them in that direction—from day one. All I require of myself is to treat these people with the same common respect that everyone deserves. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm an old folk and an old editor, and a sometime tour guide. In the middle of a lecture about, say, the connection between reinforced concrete technology and the shape of the old aqueduct we're looking at, I like to mention that I mostly learned this stuff from writing about it in Wikipedia. When this causes ears to perk up, I encourage questions and steer the conversation to how WP works. I compare it to a swan and to an iceberg. Like the iceberg it's 99% underwater, and like the swan we may seem to be majestically sailing along, but underneath there's all sorts of messy, muddy action going on. The various clicky things along the top and the side of the page are the doors and windows into the underwater side. Once you get underneath it may look kind of scary, but you can just go ahead and fix something that's broken. Don't worry if you make an honest mistake. Most of us do, and there are many vigilantes watching out. Some of us patiently explain what went wrong, and some are cranky when we repair a bad repair, but you don't have to worry or get upset. One of the tabs at the top is for the discussion page where we discuss what the article ought to say. There are rules about being nice even when the other side is both wrong and mean, but of course nice people like you know that's the smart way to do anything. And if you want to be a vigilante like me, that's also pretty easy. I'm trying to adapt this approach in helping an professor teach a class of English majors at a local university. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A screenshot of RCFilter (m:User:He7d3r/Tools/RCScoreFilter.js) on the recent changes feed is presented.

Hey folks, I wanted to riff off of a point that ke4roh made: "I don't believe there is a natural trade-off between quality and friendliness." I'm with you. Right now, the majority of quality control is done by User:ClueBot NG and tools like WP:Huggle, WP:Stiki and WP:Page Curation [10]. While these tools do make reviewing the recent changes feed more efficient, they centralize quality control work and use algorithmic strategies that focus people's attention on reverting/deleting newcomers work. Because of this centralization, you have a small group of people who are responsible for first line of defense for the entire wiki. These patrollers must review changes to content across the entire range of subjects and they are often judged by their ability to efficiently filter vandalism and other damage -- not by how effective they engage in teaching opportunities. It takes substantially less time to revert and edit that *might* be damage than to engage with the user who made the edit. So I don't think it's any surprise that we've optimized for one and not the other.

So how do we do better? I think the trick is to make quality control event more efficient than it already is. Step #1 is to decentralize quality control and add good-faith teaching opportunities to the filter it provides. My hope is that we can do this by re-distributing quality control work through making powerful algorithmic tools available across the wiki. In my recent work, I've been developing a system for making it easy to stand up new quality control tools (as well as tools for identifying promising newcomers). See m:R:Revision scoring as a service. The screenshot on the right shows User:He7d3r's 10-line javascript gadget that uses the service to score revisions (note the red highlights for likely-damaging edits). Using this strategy, it's trivial to modify the UI based on the "damage" probability of an edit. I plan to use these scores to stand up "newcomer good-faithiness" models too (as I did in WP:Snuggle -- see how here [11]). With this, I think that the next version of User:EpochFail/NICE should both help you find damage to revert and make it easy to teach good-faith newcomers about the boundaries they've crossed. More importantly, I want to enable other creative people to develop tools that they see a need for using these scores.

We're still in the Alpha stage with these services, but we'll be ready for Beta testers soon. In the meantime, we could use some help with manually labeling edits as "damaging" and/or "good-faith" to train our Artificial Intelligence systems. If you're interested in helping out with that, sign up here: Wikipedia:Labels/Edit_quality. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 15:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing linked a most excellent paper on the issue - if you, dear reader, haven't already, you should read it. I have certainly seen the calcification with respect to WP:CAPTIONS. I started that page just writing a whole bunch of stuff off the cuff, and many of those same words are still in the style guide (now that it's called a style guide), but Heaven help us when we wanted to clarify a few points about when non-sentence captions were acceptable!

EpochFail, I think we're on to something. I think the very best thing will be when we can tap more of the reader base for crowdsourcing checking edits. If we could do something like Google Translate does - to show you two versions (native and translated) when you hover on the translated text - we would present the edit with, say, a dotted box around the change. Hover, then the user sees the other text. And the user is then presented with a choice of which way is better. Present that to enough people, and we'll get some good feedback. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Involving more people may be good, but not if that means checking every edit multiple times. If edits keep being reviewed until someone reverts them, then everything will get reverted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

+1 to both. It seems like we'd need to get the crowdsourcing strategy right in order for this to actually be beneficial. It seems like this would be a valuable research project, so I created a draft page for it. See m:Research:Reader crowdsourced quality evaluations. I'm not sure when/if I'll have time to pick this project up myself (never enough hours in the day), but I'm happy to help someone else get it off the ground. ke4roh, could you flesh out a proposal for how you might like to get started with looking at reader-evaluations? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (May 2015)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

Today The Wikipedia Library announces signups for more free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

• MIT Press Journals — scholarly journals in the humanities, sciences, and social sciences (200 accounts)
• Loeb Classical Library — Harvard University Press versions of Classical Greek and Latin literature with commentary and annotation (25 accounts)
• RIPM — music periodicals published between 1760 and 1966 (20 accounts)
• Sage Stats — social science data for geographies within the United States (10 accounts)
• HeinOnline — an extensive legal research database, including 2000 law-related journals as well as international legal history materials (25 accounts)

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, JSTOR, DeGruyter, Newspapers.com and British Newspaper Archive. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 22:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We need your help! Help coordinate Wikipedia Library's account distribution and global development! Please join our team at Global our new coordinator signup.

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List

Command vs. thin spaces

Apparently User:Jimp and possibly other editors have been going around applying the {{val}} template to replace comma formatting of digit groups with thin space formatting. (Ref.: WP:DIGITS.) This seems unnecessary and disruptive. Is there an appropriate procedure for this? Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The purpose was not to replace commas with thin spaces but to get consistent spacing for errors & a straight-forward mark-up. However, as the handfull of articles in question were all science articles it seemed a decent and logical spin-off to run with. If you really don't agree that the thin-space grouping is an improvement, please don't just go on a blind reversion spree and throw the baby out with the bath water. {{Val|...|fmt=commas}} gives you commas and would preserve the other improvements. Jimp 02:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimp, may I suggest you scale back on the {{val}} template usage? Stuff like "estimated surface temperature of 3323 K" looks fugly, and using the val template to get 3,323 needlessly mucks up the wikitext, especially if an editor isn't familiar with the template. Please, please, reserve the val template for cases where it's a clear and significant improvement over the simple naked number? Alsee (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimp, at least on the pages I've been tracking, the net change in visual appearance I've seen is to replace commas with thin spaces. The use of commas is pretty common in astronomical literature, so you just seem to be blindly applying your own standard... to use your own wording. Everything else was already formatted according to the MoS, so I was seeing absolutely no benefit to your activity. Praemonitus (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I second Alsee's comment. That template should be used only when it makes sense and not indiscriminately, otherwise it makes the article harder and less pleasant to read. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Who the heck is Robert Gold?

Why do we have pictures of "Robert Gold Bartender" all over Wikipedia in every bar- and drinking-related article? These pix don't actually appear in the articles but only show up when you click on a pix that IS in the article. Then they appear in the large-image sequence of pix that are in the article. (Just go to Cocktail waitress and click on the picture.) Robert Gold doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia. This looks like some kind of insane private spam or ego-trip. Wahrmund (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, on the mobile version. The bartending navbox, Template:Bartending, is graced by Gold's photograph so you see him when you scroll across. I think there's a guideline against that somewhere (there's a guideline against everything if you look hard enough) so I expect someone will remove his photo soon. Because navboxes don't appear in the mobile view and this one is hidden by default otherwise, you don't see him when viewing articles transcluding the navbox. Thincat (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. Hopefully it can be corrected. Wahrmund (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wahrmund: The image of Robert Gold in Template:Bartending is also in the infobox for the Bartender article. You may want to discuss your concern at Template talk:Bartending, especially if you have a suggestion for an alternate image for the navbox. I don't mind having a photograph of a random bartender in a navbox about bartending, just like I don't mind having a photo of a random cocktail waitress in the infobox for Cocktail waitress. GoingBatty (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender reporting

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump § Gender reporting

 – Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm participating in a debate where the possibility of systemic gender bias has been raised. In response, one editor opened a section in which he listed all the participants' names and invited them to voluntarily state their gender; some editors (a minority) did choose to add that information to the debate.

However: another editor has now gone through that list and – on his own – reported every participant's gender where known.

Am I right to find this inappropriate? Within the context of a debate, I see no problem with inviting users to share that fact; however, for one editor to add that information en masse on everyone else seems wrong. Regardless of what someone can find out about his fellow editors, it seems to me that what participants choose to add/state/disclose in a forum should be their choice – not someone else's.

Thoughts? ╠╣uw [talk] 09:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If their gender is not publically visible - such as by means of a template like {{heshe}} (for example, {{heshe|Redrose64}} gives "he or she") - it's a WP:OUTING violation. Compare {{heshe|Huwmanbeing}} which gives "he". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose. Perhaps my uneasiness simply stemmed from the blanket nature of it: an editor opting to post the known genders of all those involved en masse, information which (while available via template) the editors did not not themselves choose to introduce into the debate. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

“references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing” . . . “if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums” . . . “When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information.” BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If a user makes it easy to know if they are male or female (such as by the "Preferences" setting which causes the {{heshe}} output, an explicit statement on the user's userpage), then mentioning it elsewhere isn't possibly OUTing, regardless of the context - even en masse; if the user had previously made a statement and had subsequently tried to hide it, to expose it would possibly be OUTing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not be a rule violation per outing, but it is fantastically bad form in civil discussion. It is a clear, blatant, and rather rude attempt at poisoning the well by introducing the implication that a person's comments in a discussion could be discounted merely because of their gender. That implication is beyond-the-pale rude, and should not be tolerated, regardless of any WP:OUTING implications, or lack thereof. We should focus on what is right, not what is allowed, and it isn't right to poison the well in a discussion like that. --Jayron32 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't the mobile version show red links?

It it because it is thought to be too difficult to begin articles using the mobile version? I tend to think of wp:redlinks as great things, as long as they are placed where articles or redirects should be created. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm yes, seems they show as plain text w/o link or colour. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is covered in phab:T57500. I didn't read the whole conversation (it is long), but I think it's because article creation flow on mobile isn't finished. Killiondude (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I see that conversation ended in June 2014. Any ideas on the location of an updated thread, User:Mdennis (WMF)? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Melamrawy (WMF) is the person to ask about that. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Whatamidoing (WMF). Is it unsafe to assume that that notification will be replied to here? I'm thinking I might need to post on their talk page or send an email. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've lost track of her schedule, so I'm not sure. But feel free to drop by her talk page. She's far less likely to bite than I am. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Whatamidoing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melamrawy (WMF) for the post on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you understood my question on this thread. I am wondering why red links do not appear at all on the mobile version of Wikipedia. For example, if you go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Cheatsheet&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile you will see that the "red link example" is not red. It is black like plain text. You might also compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pycnanthemum and see how many species still need articles. But when you go to the mobile version of that page (anyone can toggle between versions at the bottom of every Wikipedia article, from "desktop" to "mobile" and vice versa), the red links are not there. There are no links to show mobile viewers that Wikipedia needs an article on the subject. Why is that? Also, wouldn't this approach encourage mobile editors to create wikilinks where wikilinks ([[ ]]) already exist? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be treated as a bug? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I got it correct from the first time Biosthmors :). It is needed, especially now after more editing traffic due to enabling IP editing. I am checking the status with the current responsible team, because as you saw in the phab ticket above, this has already been discussed earlier, so as I mentioned in my comment on your page: Lets see how this will work --it didn't fall off the radar, don't worry :). Thanks again for bringing up the issue.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Melamrawy (WMF), thanks for the reply again. When I check this (a mobile version of a red link, an uncreated article), I see that IP editors can not create a new article, just like IP editors on the desktop version. So, unfortunately, I still don't understand your answer. =( I'm sorry that I'm still at a loss. Why is it a bad thing for people to see red links on the mobile version? I thought you were trying to say that "because IP editors can start new articles on the mobile version, we don't want to enable red links to prevent a flooding of new, low quality articles". But I now see that's not the case. IP editors can not create new articles on the mobile version. Thanks again for your input. Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Biosthmors as agreed, this is needs to change. I will keep you posted of which team could dedicate time to solve this bug on their upcoming sprint. Thanks :-) --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Maggie, Melamrawy, Whatamidoing, please state the official WMF viewpoint on the proposal being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melamrawy (WMF). I appreicate it. Feel free to let me/us know if there is or there will be a wp:phabricator thread on this as well. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How to adapt the language list?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136 § How to adapt the languages list?

Thanks. I tried but it did not work yet. I'll continue this question in WP:VPT Ceinturion (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Formatting.

Is this essay formatted correctly, or have I messed something up? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tharthan: Is there a specific question that you have? Nothing jumps out at me regarding your formatting, beyond redirects into user space generally being frowned upon. --B (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@B: Yes. Particularly, the picture formatting. It looks off to me for some reason. Shouldn't it be higher up on the page? Tharthan (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no idea why I messed that up. Then again, I was never the editor to place pictures onto pages, so I practically have no experience doing so here. Tharthan (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tharthan: (edit conflict) I moved your pictures up - is that what you are looking for? Remember that the exact position of pictures relative to the text will vary widely depending on the reader's monitor or device. For example, if I have dual 4K resolution monitors and stretch the article across both of them, I will see things differently than if I have an old laptop running 1024x768. So you don't necessarily want to position them just somewhere to look good for you. You could also create a gallery and then your images will flow across. See Help:Gallery tag for examples. --B (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

AWB blues

I've been experiencing problems for some time with AWB edits, particularly by Bgwhite and Magioladitis/Yobot. There are too many issues to list, but the problem is that they repeatedly restore their edits over objections. A lot of the edits make no difference to the reader but fill up the watchlists. Or they make changes that have an editorial impact and restore them even if the article writers disagree.

For example, for some reason AWB moves references into the chronological order of the footnotes, rather than where they've been placed for editorial reasons. So a sentence claiming A and B might have the refs positioned after the sentence so that the ref for A comes first. But if A is footnote 9 and B is footnote 8, AWB editors will change the position. If you change it back, another one arrives to do it again.

They also repeatedly remove repetition of named references. When I'm writing a first draft of an article, I often repeat the reference in full (e.g. ref name=X, followed by the citation) so that I can section edit and see the citations. Once I have a draft in place, I remove them and use only ref name=X. AWB editors won't let me do this. They keep arriving – on articles they otherwise have no involvement in – to remove repeated citations.

Each of the issues feels too minor to complain about, but the overall effect is time-consuming and depressing. It feels as though articles are held hostage to whatever rules someone has programmed into AWB. Complaints have been met with rudeness and what seemed to be revenge editing elsewhere. I recently tried to add {{bots|deny=AWB}} to stop it, but Bgwhite reverted, telling me I had added it "illegally." [12] I'm bringing it here for discussion in the hope that some of the technical editors might be able to offer suggestions, as I have no idea how AWB works. Redrose64, I'm pinging you in case you can advise. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Sarah (SV) I already contacted you to your talk page and I asked for clarification. I did every single edit step-by-step proving clear edit summary. I left the footnotes untouched and left the AWB deny tag you posted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the page already has consolidated references I assumed this was not your problem with the AWB edits. Feel free to revert this. I arrived to the page due to the unclosed blockquote tag which I fixed. I am OK if you leave the AWB deny tag in the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis, thanks for doing that, though I see you restored the edits.

I'd prefer not to talk about particular cases, because then we'll get bogged down. The broader issues are (a) someone seems to have programmed AWB to make odd edits (e.g. moving refs out of position); and (b) when these are reverted, you revert back, or arrive a few days or weeks later to do the same thing again. And this is on articles that you otherwise have no involvement in, so you're saying that your opinions must count for more than the opinions of the people who are actually working on the articles.

It's these broader issues that I feel need to be discussed. I'm also pinging Doc James as I know he has commented on this too. The point is: shouldn't AWB editors observe bold, revert, discuss like everyone else? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) I did not restore the edit in question. Am I wrong? You reverted an edit that had many parts and restored the parts I think were uncontroversial (for example I removed an unclosed tag). I left the other parts out. Your edit summary was not very clear so I am not sure if I did right so I left you a message to review by edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that particular case doesn't matter. Can you address the broader issue of AWB (a) not making these edits in the first place, particularly moving refs out of place, and (b) when you're reverted not reverting back? Also, why is the tag being removed and what is meant by "illegally"? We're surely allowed to use it or it wouldn't exist. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV):

1. The instructions on {{nobots}} says to, "1) Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument 2) Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community". Nobody contacted the bot owners before applying the nobots template.
2. We arrived at the pages for CheckWiki fixes for which we both have bot approval.
3. Doing a complete revert without fixing the underlying problem means the article is still on the CheckWiki lists and we will continue arriving at the page until fixed.
4. There is the {{in use}} tag for when the page is under active construction. AWB bots will not edit a page with this tag present.
5. AWB will only combine refs if there are already combined, named refs in the article.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), Bgwhite I am OK if the deny tag is used as last resort. The tag still exists in Female genital mutilation where we again had an interaction and I can't recall any other interaction between all us three in the past. After, I was reverted in Study 329 I immediately searched for another approach. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I've repeatedly raised this with you and M, to no avail, so now I'm going to add the tag, particularly when I'm working on something where I don't want the ref positions to be changed. On study 329, they've been changed by AWB three times in just a few days, and repeated citations removed too. Again, the point is that AWB editors shouldn't be arriving at articles they have no involvement in to impose the style preferences of the tiny number of people who control AWB. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm being asked... I'm not an AWB dev; moreover, I have never actually used AWB because (a) I don't edit with IE and in fact I use IE only rarely, in order to check if my CSS suggestions work on that browser (as here); (b) I prefer to make my own mistakes. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Redrose, I pinged you because I don't know who to ask for the best. Pinging Reedy and Rjwilmsi, as they're listed as AWB developers. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging JamesR from the bot approvals group. The issue for anyone not wanting to read the above is that someone has programmed AWB to make edits that a couple of people simply don't like (e.g. that citations in an article must appear in the chronological order of the footnotes). Those edits are then repeatedly made to articles over the objections of the article writers, month after month, year after year. When we add the {{bots|deny=AWB}} tag we're reverted. So what can we do? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) you 've been reverted by a single user, AWB does not override the deny tag and I did not revert you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite removes them, as I said above. Can you address the larger issues, M? First, how can we get rid of that AWB thing that moves references out of place? AWB should not be doing that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I support you on that. In the past I proposed that we make the ref reordering optional and disabled for bots. I should find the discussion for you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you say how it got added to AWB? It seems a strange thing to do, especially automated. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref ordering is a general fix, simply because refs should be presented in order. Having a "This sentence states something.^{[137][8][97][45]}" goes against pretty much every style guide out there, because you should present them in order as ^{[8][45][97][137]}. This has been incorporated in AWB years ago and this fix has support. There may be some weird article-specific reason for not following this convention, but you'd need a really good argument for not following professional standards. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In some cases, I wouldn't use the word "often" but it's not at all uncommon, certain references in a sequence are more important than others and should be read first. If the reader looks at only the first one or two refs, we want to determine which refs those will be. It's sound editorial judgment, there's nothing "weird" about it, and I personally don't lose any sleep over deviating from "professional standards" that stand between me and reader value. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the response, Headbomb. Can you post examples of the professional standards or style guides you're referring to?

On WP we use ref name, rather than posting separate footnotes (which I would prefer to do, but if we try that AWB editors revert us.) So if we have a sentence "Mary likes cake, but John doesn't," and a ref to support each part of the sentence, they need to be placed in order after the sentence, no matter what number the footnote has (i.e. even if one of them has been used earler in the article). That's a trivial example, but there are examples where it's important to begin with the secondary and not the primary source, or where the issues are contentious and the refs have to be easy to find. These are editorial decisions, and AWB editors shouldn't be making them when they're not familiar with the issues, or reverting when the refs are moved back into place.

The AWB rules say that the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate consensus. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Headbomb, I see it was you who suggested adding it to AWB. [13] Rjwilmsi responded that it needed consensus. Magioladitis supported it, JLogan objected, and it was added. Was there a discussion somewhere else that gained consensus, or was that it? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Break 1

@SlimVirgin: Three suggestions for you:

1. If you have a sentence "Mary likes cake, but John doesn't," and a ref to support each part of the sentence, you could write Mary likes cake,<ref name=Mary/> but John doesn't.<ref name=John/>
2. If you add a comment between consecutive references (maybe explaining why they're in a certain order), AWB won't rearrange them.
3. When you're writing a first draft of an article, you could create it in the Draft namespace or your user sandbox to keep the bots away, and then move it to mainspace when you're done.

Hope this helps make your editing experience more pleasurable. GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty, but I prefer not to be forced to add refs inside sentences, and we shouldn't have to explain why they're in a certain order. The broader point, I think, is that we shouldn't have to jump through hoops like this. Magioladitis, what can we do to resolve this? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin explaining why ref are in a given order may be a good thing since the main argument of the people who want the re reordering is that a random editor can never know for sure which ref order is the best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I'm not sure I understand that. I agree that random editors can't know which ref order is best, but at the moment AWB is helping random editors change the order.

Again, I'd prefer to address the broader issue. Almost all AWB rules are just the preferences of a small number of people, perhaps just one person, being imposed on everyone as though they are policies. If we object, the edits are restored again and again, maybe for years. It's basically slow edit warring. It's that attitude, I think, that has to change. Using AWB doesn't make editors immune from behavioral guidelines, and editors who want to avoid these conflicts have to be allowed to use the deny tag without it being removed. If that last point could be accepted, that would help a lot. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of AWB rules are described at WP:AWB/GF and almost(?) all AWB rules follow manual of style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of these have nothing to do with the MOS, and anyway the MOS isn't policy. Can you help to establish that, if the deny tag is added, it mustn't be removed? That would allow writers some escape from this. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, Reedy and Rjwilmsi, I would really appreciate a response to this so that we can try to resolve things. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: random comment: there are way more uses of bots/nobots in article space than I would have expected. This seems like a bad idea and like it should be the very last resort and only a temporary measure unless/until the problem is resolved. From looking around, I'm going to pick Canmore, Alberta as an example of an article that uses the tag for a similar reason to the one discussed above - there are ordered refs for the "Population history" table and to keep AWB out, the bots tag is used. I would think that better options would be (1) move the refs into the table itself next to the data actually being cited so that you don't have to count to try and figure out which ref cites which line or (2) if there is an editorial reason not to do that, add the comment between refs described above. The way it is now, AWB is blocked from doing other useful things on the page. It seems like the problem should be resolved with a comment - if you don't want users (AWB or otherwise) reordering refs, you need to tell them why. --B (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi B, thanks for the comment. I don't accept that if I don't want AWB reordering refs, I need to explain why. (I don't understand what you mean about a table.) Rather, editors who want to do it should explain why, and I'd love to hear the explanation. It's something that makes no sense. Editors and readers are very lazy, especially regarding anything contentious. If they click on the first ref, and the most pertinent information isn't there, they remove material, add a cite tag or complain on talk. Refs need to stay where the writers have placed them, unless there's reason to think a mistake has been made.

Re: the tag, I've added it as a last resort (and even then it was removed), because I've been trying to sort this out for a long time, to no avail – not only ref reordering, but several other issues. As I keep saying, the important issue is that AWB editors should abide by the same rules as everyone else, but they don't. They don't even abide by the AWB rules of use, namely: abide by all policies, guidelines and common practices; seek consensus for changes that could be controversial; if challenged, the onus is on the operator to gain consensus; and don't make inconsequential edits. None of these rules are adhered to. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that none explains what they prefer a certain order then everything goes down to level of preference. I think most editors think of the order suggested by AWB as the default order unless someone else proves that in a certain article the order of refs should be something else. Using comments would be really useful not only for AWB users. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not always a matter of preference, M. As I wrote earlier, Mary likes cake, but John doesn't.<ref name=Mary/><ref name=John/> is written that way so the reader finds the sources in order of claim presentation. When the claims are contentious, this matters. Or the writer might place the secondary source first, or the second source might be a "see also" source. But I've said all this already.

Instead of discussing particulars, can we discuss the broader issues, please? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Rather, editors who want to do it should explain why" - if there isn't a sign saying "don't do this", doesn't BRD suggest it's okay to do that? If you don't want someone (editor, semi-automated editor, anyone) doing something, you need to let them know. If I see the Mary and John example, if the reference about John is a really good article from a major newspaper and the reference to Mary is a weak barely reliable source, I might think that moving John's ref ahead or even removing Mary's completely is a good idea, not realizing that there is a reason for it the way it is. --B (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

They do it over and over, and not only that one issue, Maglioditis and Bgwhite in particular. BRD says not to do that, and the AWB rules say not to do it, which is why I keep trying to steer the conversation to the bigger picture, and I would really appreciate it if that conversation could happen, rather than discussing particular examples. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've been pinged about this discussion. I didn't really want to enter the debate here, so I'll post once and bow out. On the one hand, considering the reader of a page, if references are put in a specific, non-numeric order by the editor, I do not see how the reader can be sure if that means something special, and how to know which ref applies to what, so on the basis of reader understanding I would think using a specific, non-numeric order by the editor would be discouraged; within-sentence referencing or explanatory comments within the reference would seem a much clearer solution, ref order would then not be a dependency for understanding. On the other hand, AWB feature requests do not necessarily get widely announced, so maybe a feature was added that goes against some established practice in certain cases. So the simplest thing here would seem to me to have a wide discussion about the encouraged/approved/discouraged options for reference ordering on the MOS/WP:CITE pages, ensure that the MOS/WP:CITE etc. guidelines are updated if a consensus is reached. Then I will ensure AWB is updated if required to support the consensus reached. If, as is possible in these areas of MOS standards, no consensus is reached, then SV has been given some options to update the affected article. Rjwilmsi 06:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for proposal

The ref reordering was implemented with a 3-1 consensus on a "feature requests" page with relatively few watchers. I would suggest that a wider consensus is needed to sustain something like this. We should pretend that the feature does not exist and take it through the WP:VPR proposal process, like other things that affect a significant number of editors in a controversial way. The consensus burden should be on "keep", not "remove"; i.e., it would be removed in the absence of a consensus. If the idea has as much merit as its proponents claim, it should have no problem earning consensus there. Being an actual community consensus with wide exposure, it should be more durable. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not about the best order for references, and while a discussion concerning what AWB does would be desirable, such a discussion would not address the underlying issue. The problem is that drive-by editors with no interest in a particular article (and no knowledge of the references or whether there is any reason for the presentation order) are using automated tools to apply a "standard", and they are insisting that their edits apply. AWB users might sometimes develop an unrealistic goal of "fixing" the encyclopedia by making everything follow their style. The AWB rules may well be desirable for many articles, but they should not be applied in cases like those mentioned above where an editor has gone to a great deal of trouble to develop the article content. It would obviously be fine if someone wanted to join in and help develop the article, and a discussion could occur based on what is best for the article and its readers. That is not what is happening. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather than using {{nobots}} like a blunt instrument, maybe we need a {{ref order}} tag to stop scripts and bots from changing that particular part of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi WAID, that would be good, but it isn't the only issue. The problem is that a small number of editors want all articles to conform to their style, and won't stop no matter how often they're asked. They violate BRD and their own AWB rules, but that seems not to matter. If the AWB deny tag were respected, that would help. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The comments option in the middle of references is still better I think. It's not only AWB editors who visit pages. Editors have been reordering refs before AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Overabundance of photos of President Obama

I don't know if I'm the only one who has struck this opinion, but it seems we use an over abundance of pictures of the current US President, Barack Obama. Even on articles that have nothing to do - directly or indirectly - with the presidency. Fist bump is a good example. I know there are other examples, but I can't remember any off the top of my head. Just seems POV-ish to me. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the contributing factors to this may be that public domain photos of him are pretty easy to obtain since photos are taken by government photographers at his events. All those photos are part of the public domain. only (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Get your camera, take high-quality pictures that can replace all of them, and then upload them and replace them. Wikipedia does not have a staff of paid editors who make any decisions at all, it consists solely of people exactly like you who saw a problem and fixed it. If you see a problem and don't fix it, then the only person to blame is yourself. --Jayron32 00:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the presidential fistbump photo? It's not the lede image for the article; it's in the section on history as a particularly notable example due to the brouhaha it created.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with : we have a public figure who has show himself to be wise in the ways of social media and in a place where nearly every image of him will be a free image, as such , it is great content for a free encyclopedia. He's also probably the first sitting President that also "gets that" too. Perhaps the next President will realize the same thing and then we can start balancing images with that. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I Actually pity anyone who tries, given the multiple edit wars that will undoubtedly start. Resolute 19:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The section reminds me of a Memory Alpha article. "George Washington was a US President. George Washington was shown in a picture in episode 5 of season 3 and his face was on a coin in Star Trek IV." "A fist bump is when two people bump their fist. President Obama once fist bumped his wife." Yes, the usage of photos of Obama is probably not intended as a political statement or anything ... but it doesn't belong in "history" - it belongs with all of the "other instances". And the trivia about the FNC host that nobody has ever heard of losing her job possibly, but not definitely, related to her snark about the President's fist bump ... good grief, that's absurd trivia to have in an article about fist bumps. Speculation about trivia about trivia? Good grief. --B (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo insertion should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than according to some criteria about how many there are in total across Wikipedia for a particular subject. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A/B Testing for VisualEditor to begin May 21st

Hi there. I’m about to kick off a short A/B test that will enable VisualEditor for newly registered users. This test will affect half of the new editors who sign up on Wikipedia. We’ll start on 21 May, 2015 by running a 24-hour pilot study (why?) to test our experimental framework. Assuming that everything’s working, we’ll then start a one-week study. Once this experimental week is up, we will cease enabling VisualEditor for newcomers while we analyze its effects.

In this experiment, I’ll be looking for evidence about whether offering VisualEditor makes editing easier/more productive for newcomers or raises additional burdens (reverting damage, blocking vandals) for current editors. One of the WMF's goal in this test is to determine whether we’re ready to start a discussion about offering VisualEditor to new users. Negative outcomes will result in further improvements and user testing.

As has become my standard practice for WMF experiments, I’ll be maintaining a project page on Meta with details about this experiment. I will also maintain work logs while I monitor the experiment and analyze the results. If you have any questions about this test, please feel free to come talk to me on the project talk page. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot request for disambiguation link fixing issue.

I have requested the bot flag to run AWB as a bot in order to clean up certain kinds of links left from disambiguation page moves. For example, the page Epping previously was an article on a specifc town in England. This page was moved to Epping, Essex, and Epping became a disambiguation page with several hundred incoming links. As is commonly found in such cases, most of the links intended the town in England, and many were found in formulations like "[[Epping]], Essex", or "[[Epping]], [[Essex]]". A similar issue arises in the recurring creation of common patterns of disambiguation links to heavily linked articles; for example editors will often make edits creating disambiguation links like "[[heavy metal]] music" and "the [[French]] language", which can easily be resolved as "[[heavy metal music]]" and "the [[French language]]". Over time, large numbers of these links may build up. Over the course of my career as an editor, I have made literally hundreds of thousands of fixes like these using AWB. Even though this is much faster than editing the pages individually in a browser, it is still time consuming when large numbers of links must be fixed.

I have therefore finally decided to request permission to run AWB as a bot so that when page moves are made or common disambiguation targets become heavily linked, obvious formulations like these can be changed with less of a direct investment of my time. My intention is to use this functionality when a page move creates a large number of disambiguation links, for which obvious formulations for a large number of fixes can be seen. New disambiguation pages are created frequently; anywhere from a few dozen pages to a few hundred pages might benefit this kind of attention on any given day, although there are likely to be days where no pages require such attention. My intention is to determine if there are obvious patterns of links to be fixed, for example changing instances of "[[Epping]], Essex" or "[[Epping]], [[Essex]]" to "[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], Essex", or "[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], [[Essex]]". I will then run AWB in bot mode to make these changes (perhaps in a batch of a hundred at a time), and review the changes once made. It has been brought to my attention that similar proposals have been rejected in the past under WP:CONTEXTBOT, so I would like to know if there is any particular sentiment in the community about such a use of a bot flag. bd2412 T 22:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], Essex" and "[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], [[Essex]]" are both messy. Use "[[Epping, Essex]]", see WP:SPECIFICLINK. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My intent in creating the piped link is to disturb the existing layout of the page as little as possible. bd2412 T 00:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICLINK is about linking to the most specific article available, not about how much of the text to link. Consistency of links is more important than consistency with the target page names; a sequence of links such as "Epping, Essex and Eppingen, Baden-Württemberg" is easier to read when editing a page but is not intuitive for navigation, and if Baden-Württemberg is a relevant link in this context then so is Essex. Peter James (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The point of the proposition is to fix large numbers of broken links quickly; tweaks can follow, but it is easier to avoid missteps if the page appearance remains the same after the fix. bd2412 T 23:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Iron Guard

I see that Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board is no longer active, so this is the only forum I can think to bring this to; if someone has another suggestion, I have no problem with moving the discussion.

The article on the Iron Guard, the radically antisemitic political party in Romania in the 1930s until its suppression in 1941, contains some uncited statements in the article's own voice that could almost have been written by the party itself:

The internal situation was favouring the Jews, as they were in direct charge of Romanian press, politics and public life. As the First World War ended, the Jews turned to pro-communism, an attitude strongly condemned by the population, as the Soviet Union was growing more and more aggressive.

I don't have time at present to work on this, especially not to find citations for the status of the Jews in Romania in the 1930s (which I assure you was not a status of "direct charge of … press, politics and public life") and the claim of Jewish support for the Soviet Union reads like a justification of the Iași pogrom. Surely this is not what our encyclopedia article should say. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I tagged the article with {{neutrality}} based on this. Which page do you want people to post on, here or the article talk page? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel: In general, if a notice board is inactive, what I do is go to the most relevant WikiProject, which in this case would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ah. I hadn't noticed that was active. Eight or so years ago, all the action moved from the WikiProject to the notice board; I guess it's moved back.
• I'll post on the WikiProject. I don't think there is any need for further discussion here at the VP, that should really be on the article talk page; I mostly just wanted to call more attention to what I see as a pretty serious problem than it would get from just a posting on an article talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Fan service image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So long story short, I found File:Kogaru1.jpg and thought it would be good to use as an example in the article Fan service what I had forgot about was a discussion 4 years ago about the said image: community consensus. So I am wondering, has anything changed? A few points I want to make:

• 1. The image is being used globally on 11 different Wikipedia languages.
• 2. If the Wikimedia Foundation took issue with the image it would have been axed a long time ago, my example being the lolicon image of wikipe-tan that was deleted by Jimbo Wales.
• 3. The image is free use, it is very hard to find free use images on the internet that depict what a subject is about.
• 4. Wikipedia is not censored, this being a fictional drawing there is no way of telling how old the depicted female is (Nothing is shown to indicate).
• 5. The original up-loader of the image had been banned but the image was re-uploaded and as I said has been in use globally.

So with all of these points said, is there a way we can form a new consensus on it's use? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In context with the fan service article the image would be used to illustrate the following:

• In shonen manga, pin-up girl style images are common "in varying states of undress", often using an "accidental exposure" excuse to show a favourite female character, or an upskirt "glimpse of a character's panties".

References

Comments

• I can't see how this would be a good thing. Just because Wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean that we can't exercise editorial constraint. I feel that including that image would only serve as a detriment and reduce the overall integrity of the encyclopedia.--Jorm (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• As I said the image is already being used globally so it in the encyclopedia, can you show me the damage that has been done in the 4 years it has been used on those other global wikis? I want to add that artists are very out there when it comes to anime art, the character Yoko from Gurren Lagann [14] for example is 14 according to the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Just because another project does something that isn't great doesn't mean that we should, too. That's not an argument. We can be better, and we should be better.--Jorm (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I understand your position but you haven't addressed why, I suspect age which I gave an example of above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• The "why" is because I don't think we need to celebrate the sexualization of children. It's pretty simple.--Jorm (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Prove to me that the image is of a child, I can look at it and say a college student with her back turned. Can you make out anything that would give away that this is a child? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oh brother. I'm not going down this rathole with you. I might instead ask why you are so dead-set on including images of sexualized children (or people who look like children, or people are trying to look like children). The end result is the same: a degrading of the encyclopedia's integrity. --Jorm (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certain college students in japan don't wear uniforms, or if they do, they certainly don't look like that. It's clearly a child. Regardless, you know exactly what he means and it's embarrassing to try and play semantics about this. It doesn't matter that it's common in anime, that doesn't make it so we have to use it. Parabolist (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Do you want some more examples of anime characters with panty shots with youthful faces? Its not child sexuality, its reality and the type of artwork in the form of media. fan service like this is common in English anime media, if you dont believe me read the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is where understanding the cultural differences come into play. In Japan, such images are very commonplace, and hardly cause an issue. In the US and some European countries, they are considered scandalous. On the other hand, while the current -tan bikini shot is meant to be alluring, it has very little cultural difference and won't set off any alarms from anyone. We're not censored, but we do consider using images that are considered "safer" across the whole of the world if we have that option, and that exists here. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is a common occurrence in English released anime and manga though as well, there is no way to prove that the image is of a child, you can see no features other than a cute face that would possibly give that away. if we are going with the cute face thing here then as I have said that is the standard of the type of artwork anime is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• However, it is in an outfit (the fuku) that in the US and Europe we associate with high schools and lower grades in Japan, and in these Western cultures, teenage girls that attend high school or lower are generally not of the age of consent and so this starts boarding on questionable nature. We have a much safer free image that can be used instead that conveys the same idea - fan service being art that is meant to be slightly sexual but far from pornographic, and that has no issues that I am aware of in terms of sensibility in any part of the world. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I will drop this, an image already exists. I just hope that a better one can be used in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see what reader value it would add to Fan service, which already has one image. It's not necessary to illustrate what an upskirt image is, I think the average reader can figure it out. Not opposed to use where there is better justification or need. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• The current example is a cropped picture of wikipe-tan and doesn't really provide a good example of what fan service is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Principle of least surprise. Since fan service include both the current image and the one suggested, and the current image is much tamer (it's risque but no greater than the need to explain the nature of fan service) it is the better one to use, and the other is not needed. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why do we have the image then if we cant use it? The image both can show accidental exposure and is an up-skirt shot. I know its not tame but neither is sexual intercourse. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Masem (and I) didn't say we can't use it, he said it isn't needed in this article. As for Sexual intercourse, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Presumably, the editors of that article have decided locally that the image use in that article is appropriate and useful to the reader; that's why we have article talk. Actually I'm not sure why this is here rather than at Talk:Fan service, where there are 133 watchers, some of whom would be happy to discuss the suitability for that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Because the image was originally removed per a "community consensus" according to Risker. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Gotcha, I just now read the comments in article talk. Well so far it seems little has changed in four years, but the discussion is young. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• The article states "Fan service usually refers to "gratuitous titillation"". Is adding an example truly improving the article's educational role, or indulging in that titillation? Infested-jerk (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polemic in factual posts

I just read part of the Wikipedia page about Deepak Chopra. Let me preface by saying that I have never been to Chopra's health center and am not an avid reader of his books. Having stated that, I found the page written about him terribly offensive. It couldn't have been clearer that the person allowed to write, or deeply influence, the page about him had his/her own agenda. And that is my point in writing. An "inequity" was not cured by allowing a writer aligned with the medical orthodoxy to write about him. Rather, a greater inequity occurred.

Apparently, the writer does not believe that any reader who encounters Deepak Chopra on the page can make a reasonable decision based on his or her own sensibilities and logic, or even feelings (yes, feelings can factor into how a person can make a sound decision). What this writer has been allowed to do is to engage in unadulterated polemic. Is that okay?

Deepak Chopra's ideas come from an ancient philosophical school. I believe I may be correct in stating that his ideas are aligned with the Sankhya philosophical school, though I may be wrong. At any rate, ideas from an ancient philosophical school are not necessarily antiquated. What this writer has been allowed to do is to put Deepak Chopra on trial and to publicly convict him in writing, and on a very popular informational site. This author's conclusions (which all lead to the conviction that Chopra is professing ideas dangerous for the masses) are not necessarily accurate. Science and medicine, which this writer cleaves to as "truth," simply don't present us with all the answers. Some people need to deal with that.

Mysticism is not automatically dangerous, and should not be regarded or approached as such. It is a perennial system of coming in tune with self, a path of inner investigation (even Jung took it). In fact, mysticism is a valid path of self-inquiry practiced in myriad forms by billions of people. Additionally, most people do not take mysticism to an extreme. (But let's face it, there are a lot of things in this world that we can engage in to the extreme that could cause our own death. For instance, we can eat ourselves to death. What are you going to do? Put a warning label on all food?)

Writers of this nature are dangerous because they are telling their readers what to think and are not allowing for the full breadth of human experience. (And thinking for oneself does seem like a God-given right in these States of America. I'm pretty sure there's a public document that alludes to that.) And such writer's should not be given public forum to influence people into thinking that mysticism is laughable at best and at worst potentially fatal. Thoreau spoke about an "authority of one" in his essay, "Civil Disobedience." This author is counseling Wikipedia's readers away from that authority. And frankly, it's my understanding that Wikipedia is about getting information, not being told what to think.

In truth, I do not trust this author as a candidate to shape my ideas about the world because he/she is clearly entrenched in the medical orthodoxy, an alignment that, quite honestly, reminded me of the Catholic orthodoxy that led to the burning of Gnostics in Southern France. (Yes, I actually said that.) "Orthodoxy" means "right-thinking" and it is a moniker that was assumed, not given. People who assume that they are orthodox (right-thinking) can turn into fanatics and become dangerous. And while I don't think that this writer is going to burn anyone with fire, he/she clearly has no compunction about burning someone in the public conception. I appreciate that we have doctors, certainly, and I pay them for their services; but this does not mean that I'm not going to learn how to take care of myself to the best of my ability. And, I have to tell you, I'm 50 and regularly get told that I look like I'm in my 20's or 30's. So, in my mind, there's nothing wrong with not buying into the idea that we have to get old—unless you've got some money to be made by people thinking otherwise. People can make their own decisions about when to seek medical assistance, and what form that assistance will take.

I think I've probably made my point, but here's a news flash: There are actually intelligent people in the world. And, when it comes to Deepak Chopra, I can make up my own mind. Thank you so very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.43.53 (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the article content on the article talk page, Talk:Deepak Chopra? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Our Lady of Victory Catholic School ‎ - I could use some help

I've been cleaning up some hoax content added by 71.36.237.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), some of which has survived unchallenged since 2011. But I've run aground at Our Lady of Victory Catholic School - with the others I've been able to find a stable version to revert to, or just been able to excise 71.36.237.179's nonsense. But that whole article is unsourced, lots of it is either hoaxing or at best unencyclopedic trivia, and it's hard to find a stable version that isn't a couple of lines long. Unfortunately I have to go out now, so I'd appreciate if someone (perhaps unjaded by the other junk I've removed) could take a look at it while I'm gone. Obviously I don't like wiping the good-faith edits of unimplicated editors, but I'm thinking we may have to nuke it from orbit, just to be sure. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 08:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Despite the length of this article, I don't see any reasons to think this primary school is notable. I've searched around and found very little on the web beyond the school's web page. Under our customary procedures for primary schools, this should be redirected to List of schools of the Ottawa Catholic School Board, unless someone comes up with substantial evidence that the school passes WP:GNG. I've tagged it accordingly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't find anything beyond the same basics you found. I see you've done the merge, with which I agree entirely. Thanks for your help. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 12:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Help Requested from Experienced Editors

It has been alleged that the article Manahel Thabet may be a hoax. Due to limited response no consensus currently exists. Input from experienced editors would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also post this at WP:AN for their input, the photo looks to be photoshopped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Help Requested from Experienced Editors

It has been alleged that the article Manahel Thabet may be a hoax. Due to limited response no consensus currently exists. Input from experienced editors would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also post this at WP:AN for their input, the photo looks to be photoshopped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Some University of Massachusetts Dartmouth-related users don't want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev listed as an alumnus

Hi! I added Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to the list of alumni at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth alumni. Another user challenged the

• "he's not there because some of us do not want the university branded by his presence. Shunned."

What do you think? Do you think this is a fair reason to exclude someone from an alumni list? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. It has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Even if there were a local consensus, it's not a matter for local consensus. You don't even need to ask the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An experienced editor like Denimadept should know far better than to make such a statement. It can be argued that since Tsarnaev didn't graduate he shouldn't be added to the list but arguing what boils down to managing PR for the university is a non-starter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The no-graduation argument wouldn't last long given the dictionary definition of alumnus. There is also plenty of precedent elsewhere at Wikipedia, if anyone needed it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the dictionary definition would be challenged if there were a way to do it. I'd prefer his and his brother's entire existence be erased, that he be forgotten. - Denimadept (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What you prefer is irrelevant. See also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

That aside, I would tend to agree that the dictionary definition is somewhat... old. I rarely see/hear of dropouts at the university level described as alumni (WP:TRUTH), and even more rare is it to see particular individuals on the various lists we keep around of alumni of universities who were dropouts. I think the latter practice (rather than the dictionary definition) is more interesting since we should be informed by present article practice (notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF). --Izno (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If UMich's reputation can survive listing the Unabomber and Papa Doc Duvalier as alumni, I think UMass Dartmouth will be OK. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

While we are at it, I was always grateful that Timothy McVeigh went to Harvard so his connection to the University of Michigan is obscured by the media. And Ivan Boesky from Detroit College of Law]. I went to both of the Michigan schools, and would happily expunge them from the college roster. Nunc pro tunc. But their roots are part of who they are, where they came from, and obviously belongs in the pertinent Wikipedia articles. We don't give our readers an expurgated article because somebody is discomfited. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just preface the list with a specification that it contains graduates from the school? Including this name on the list seems somewhat WP:UNDUE. He was a marine biology major, but we wouldn't put his name on a list of marine biologists; he was born in Kyrgyzstan, but gets no mention in that article. bd2412 T 17:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, most alumni lists in general are WP:UNDUE and are largely vehicles for basking in reflected glory (and in this case, its evil twin cutting off reflected failure). To take another example from the same school, is UMD notable because Pooch Hall is an alumnus? Is Pooch Hall's notability somehow related to UMD? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, according to the article, "Hall attended the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth where he got his first taste for acting with the UMass Dartmouth Theatre Company". It is a much stronger argument that Hall's time at Dartmouth was a factor in his acting success than to say that a given criminal having attended a given college lead him to notoriety (in this case, unless Dartmouth also happened to have a bomb-making club or a class on becoming a terrorist). bd2412 T 19:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"What's your major?" "Oh, I'm majoring in Terrorism. My favorite class this semester is Advanced Bomb making."~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving

Psssh, typical liberal education, always stressing theory and knowledge over practice and results. As if you'd ever use any of the things you learn in Advanced Bomb Making in a real-life pressure-cooker-bomb scenario! Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised by this answer, given that nothing says anything about success. Unless I'm radically misreading WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, the best way to make a strong argument that Pooch Hall's time at UMD was a factor in his acting success is to provide a secondary source that actually states it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

At least there is some connection whatsoever between what Pooch Hall did at Dartmouth and what he did later. bd2412 T 19:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree, Orange Suede Sofa, with all of it. Good luck getting consensus to remove them, however. --Izno (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

bd, you have cherry-picked one example that supports your argument. Now, for all of the others in the list, please use reliable sources to show the same clear connection between the UMass education and the notability. I'm guessing at least half of the list would have to go, if your new criteria were applied evenly. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't cherry-pick anything. Read the discussion. Orange Suede Sofa picked that name out and asked: "Is Pooch Hall's notability somehow related to UMD?" I merely answered the question. The burden remains on those trying to pick counter-examples. bd2412 T 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed it was you based on your comments in article talk, which I read first. You may not have committed the cherry-picking, but you seem to support the argument based on it. Side note: Why are we having parallel discussions on this? Is anyone suggesting that anything resolved here at VP would affect anything but this one article? It wouldn't. Actually this would be a good use of the RfC process, imo, local to the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Beats me. I found this one first, and then decided to comment there after saying my piece here. bd2412 T 23:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ted Bundy is listed as a University of Washington alumni under 'Crime', even though he failed to graduate. Bundy has Tsarnaev beat on mass murder, hands down. Praemonitus (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Contra Izno, a data point about usage of the word "alumnus". St. John's College (Annapolis, Maryland, and Santa Fe, New Mexico) has no problem considering dropouts alumni. I matriculated in the fall of 1965, in the class of 1969. Though I dropped out in my junior year, I have been an alumnus of the college, Class of '69, since my class's graduation day. --Thnidu (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: You and I are separated by over 50 years of time between graduation... Usage of a word can change in that timeframe (some words have changed in definition, some drastically, in just the past half-decade--thanks Internet). --Izno (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Izno: The usage is current, as Mandruss pointed out above (05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)). (Boldface added):

• St. John's College (requires login):
  • I just checked my college's online alumni directory for class of 1969 from the Annapolis campus. I am listed as "A1969", as are all the others on that page.
• Merriam-Webster:
  •   a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university ...
• Oxford Dictionaries, American English
  • noun (plural alumni(-nī -nē))
    A graduate or former student, especially male, of a particular school, college, or university...
• Oxford Dictionaries, English
  • noun (plural alumni əˈlʌmnʌɪ)
    A male former pupil or student of a particular school, college, or university...
• MacMillan Dictionary
  • someone who was a student at a particular school, college, or university

I believe these definitions are more reliable than your personal experience ("I rarely see/hear of dropouts at the university level described as alumni (WP:TRUTH)"). --Thnidu (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to argue this point; the link to WP:TRUTH on my own part should have signified such. --Izno (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Izno Sorry, that wasn't clear to me. --Thnidu (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is our consistence long-standing practice to list all alumni in such lists, not just those who graduated. My own primary alma mater includes a President of Peru, a Prime Minister of Israel, and a head of the American Nazi Party; we don't get to pick and choose. ----Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention Manute Bol who was at the University of Bridgeport for only one year. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

500 edit requirement for editing Gamergate controversy and Talk:Gamergate controversy

Hi,

I'm looking to discuss the arbcom decision made here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing. I know discussions of an individual page are most commonly found at that respective page's talk page, but until the Talk:Talk: namespace exists that venue isn't open to all to discuss the decision made. The decision was made to restrict the editing of both pages listed above to those editors with both 500 edits and 30 days of age on their account. I don't know if a restriction of this kind has ever been applied to a talk page before; my impression is that such a restriction is exceedingly rare and that it goes against some of the core principles of the Wikipedia project. Rather than dawdling around, let me get into my opinions so those of differing opinions can pick them apart!

-The decision runs counter to the Wikipedia slogan, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." This is not the first such decision to run afoul of that credo, in my opinion; I'm a sort of absolutist on this, and would rather have a wikipedia with more errors and vandalism than a wikipedia that violates that goal. I understand that most people don't feel that way, and that's okay (though I sort of feel maybe we should get rid of that (maybe change it to "the community-curated free encyclopedia" or something that rolls off the tongue better than that) and stop confusing people, though you could imagine the field day conservatives and others who feel Wikipedia is inherently biased would have with that one!)

-The talk page is an important safety valve re:edit restrictions. The argument goes that vandalism is a problem and therefore limiting access to editing of contentious articles (e.g. 9/11) to users with some degree of vetting is a good way to limit the work for those brave souls who devote hours to reverting vandalism. I don't agree with that argument, but I understand it and sympathize with it and accept that it's the prevailing wisdom on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing that Gamergate controversy should be unprotected. However, I feel that the talk page acts as a balancing factor in the process, allowing those with opinions contrary to the current revision of the article (broadly, what we'd call at 9/11 kooks) to both support/defend their opinion as well as just gripe so as to avoid anger turning to hatred and hatred turning to vandalism (of other/related articles), or simply leaving the project altogether. I also think that a vigorous debate on the talk page of contentious articles helps expose how the sausage is made to those readers interested enough to care. That kind of transparency is important, in my opinion.

-The article as currently written accurately reflects the preponderance of RS reportage on the issue. Pains me to say this because I have some misgivings about some of the reporting on the issue, but I don't have a problem with the article itself, or if I do it's only minor niggles here and there and a general complaint about the schizophrenic quality of the article (inherent in contentious articles under the current system).

-The argument in favor of the restriction seems to be that users were tired of arguing about why the article is written the way it's written. To me, this seems to be the primary purpose of a talk page (at least in a contentious topic): discussing the current iteration of the article and debating on how to improve it in a way that is acceptable to people on both sides of the relevant ideological divide.

In short, I feel that the ban as imposed is unduly limiting to the open discussion of the issue at hand and will server to exacerbate the vitriol rather than soothe it. I'd appreciate comment, criticism, or any other ramblings people may have on the topic. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is yes, the restriction is unfair to those people who are good-faith new editors who haven't done anything wrong. That unfairness does not necessarily mean the restriction is unjustified. There is never any solution which is perfectly fair to every person in the world, and which also would curb the disruption. --Jayron32 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, having looked at why the restrictions were placed, coordinated off-site "gaming", they seem reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the FAQ and the discussion placing the restriction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this sanction as a resolution to issues of disruption in theory. However, this restriction was decided upon in an unrelated tangent in an AE case about a disruptive editor who wouldn't have even be affected by this particular sanction.[15] Seems wholly inappropriate to have originated that way. For a certainly unconventional sanction such as this, I would have hoped it would have taken more than the agreement of 3 admins. I am certainly curious to hear more about the thinking of @Zad68: and others about their line of reasoning on deciding that AE case. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I do disagree with the use to resolve disruption, on the grounds that there doesn't seem to have been any significant disruption to resolve. There were no significant problems on the talk page that weren't being handled with semi-protection and hatting, and all this does is cut out what is presumably the majority of current editors (and all new editors) from engaging in discussion, while giving a significant advantage to the current editors on the page. However, I don't think it can be resolved here, so I guess I'll need to take it to WP:ARCA at some point. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful on-topic reader feedback is not a problem if we react to it properly as we do everywhere else: we just point them to FAQs or give a stock answer or just ignore it and it will age off into the archives in due course. If some of us overreact, the restrictions should be on those of us who don't treat it properly, not shut down reader feedback. Many eyes are on this article and us seeming to freak out and overreact to so much on-topic negative reader feedback is an embarrassment to the project. Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's not pretend this is "regular" unhelpful on-topic reader feedback like what happens at Muhammad or alt-med articles. There's been a coordinated offwiki effort to drive long term editors off the article [16] using socking and other methods. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Despite some truth in their grand and mostly deluded claims of "chipping away" (for instance all the absolutely vile and disgusting things they did to Ryulong), the true monster here has been Wikipedia's culture itself. What finally drove Dreadstar off was a surprisingly vicious dispute over hidden text discussing usage of infoboxes with established featured article writers. Most editors in the area who've been outed (I count 4 out of 5) were either outed first on Wikipediocracy, or likely using information that was available on Wikipediocracy. On the talk page before the Arbcom case established editors were continuously swearing at and insulting each other and this was accepted as part of Wikipedia's culture. Editors who could simply say "read the FAQ" instead went on long insulting rants to users asking questions. Admins have been allowed to call people drama whores while blocking them, or accuse them of being a "motherfucker" with no repercussion (messing with infoboxes on the other hand is an unforgivable sin), and this is for the most part just tolerated with a sort of "admins will be admins," attitude. The Gamergate socks are just a part of this greater culture of Wikipedia shitposting, and they're incredibly ineffectual at it.Bosstopher (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've looked into the given example, the user seems to have been active in the topic areas around "A Voice for Men", "Campus rape" and "Southern Poverty Law Center" and hasn't edited GamerGate or gaming articles once, what exactly are you implying? Was there any specific disruption on the talk page that would have required these extreme measures? The editor that the original Arbitration Request was meant for is entirely unaffected. How did the admin get from the request of penalizing WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour of a single editor to this sanction? 84.131.64.160 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be because there had been three identical complaints posted to AE about TheRedPenOfDoom within two days, the first by an unknown IP account like yours, the second by an editor who had received a topic ban and violated it to post this complaint (and received a block in exchange) and the third time by a regular editor. It's hard to view a case like this on its merits when it's clear that someone put a target on TRPOD's back and they were going to continue to post this complaint until the editing environment changed.

As one blocked editor said about the GG situation What you don't seem to get is this is asymetric warfare, mostly in the sense that for you all every loss is significant (hai Dreadstar!) - for us "loss" is expected but we can afford it. Every little victory or nuisance makes it just that much less pleasant here, just that one fewer editor/admin - and bit by bit the ratchet clicks. diff

As others have said, though, neither that sock nor the hand that rocks it posted a single byte on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Saying that an IP geolocating to Germany, registered to Deutsche Telekom, is "like" an IP geolocating to the NY/NJ area, registered to AT&T, is a bit of a stretch. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The editing restrictions, which can be lifted at any time that they are seen as no longer necessary, were created to combat this off-wiki battleground mentality that sees the editing of this article as a war of attrition, where the goal is to bring down the few activist editors on this subject. By the way, TRPOD actually hasn't edited the article talk page since May 10th and last edited Wikipedia on May 12th so this is not a case of where a block would have been preventative, it would be punishment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The diffs encompassed more than just that page, unless you are saying that TRPoD was never going to edit a talk page contentiously again, *of course* those blocks would have been preventive. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This quote from the sock account that declares an asymmetric warfare is positively retarded. It's clear we are dealing with a teenager trying to act tough(failing hilariously.) I don't believe this Professor Chaos like declaration of war against Wikipedia is something to be worried. In fact the reality of Gamergate talk page is that there were occasional new users once or twice a week. If this is a coordinated attack they have forgotten to set a date on it. Darwinian Ape (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The above advice is from an account created in September 2011 but whose first edit was yesterday, making a total of 30 edits, none to articles. The gamergate requirements are intended to avoid the never-ending campaign of ultra-civil contributors who grind down established editors with repetitive commentary such as seen in this section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what is it you are insinuating here but it doesn't sound good, nor does it sound sane. Apparently I am a clairvoyant knowing Gamergate issue will arise one day, so I opened an account in 2011 biding my time, until the day THE GAMERGATE RISE!
Firstly I am not ultra civil, in fact I take that as an insult! Secondly, what does it matter who the advice is coming from. a wise woman once said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." I could have opened this account yesterday, or in 2001, what does it matter?! Hell I could have been writing as an IP, which I was until recently. But my decision to start using my account is exactly because of this attitude.(that and I was trying to make a point[[17]]) When I edited the articles in this project I did so as an IP, for I did not see any benefit to logging in, to be honest I wasn't very active either(though I would be eligible to edit gamergate had I contributed in this account) But I never even had to discuss with other Wikipedians Since my edits were limited to correcting grammar errors or adding minor changes. Then the gamergate happened, I was following it because its internet drama and that's kinda fun. But the fun part is over when it's changing the Wikipedia from "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" to an environment hostile to newcomers, or occasional contributors like myself. I have my opinion of gamergate sure, but that is not why I am writing here, because this is not about gamergate anymore. This is about the project's rules being fundamentally changed and it's deeply troubling. Darwinian Ape (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Ape clearly has a point. Please, please, please stop breaking Wikipedia to determine the outcome of a content dispute! - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Zad68, Bilby & Riffraffselbow you're unbiased on the issue involved. Unfortunately I realized certain individuals were requesting I be "blocked" from the discussion. I'm recognizing the intention of one side to silence opposition of the other; I'm asking if anyone has suggested renaming GamerGate Controversy to the more appropriate GamerGate Harassment Claims(?) - In return, making GamerGate Controversy a topic for Journalistic Ethics(?) That is the main focus of why the Twitter hashtag is so controversial. Let me clarify that with an article from Fast Company by Sarah Kessler that extends the narrative of the 12% findings;

collapse information which could be WP:FORUM here; but appropriate for the article Talk page - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate made up only a small percentage of reports of online harassment. Though the Gamergate controversy has been one the most visible stories about online harassment in the mainstream media over the past year or two, only about 12% of the 512 alleged harassing accounts reported to Women of Action Media could be linked to it. I accept that the 12% issue has been brought up before. But the magnitude of the finds in this WAM's PDF is massive, while it's a footnote in the larger dialogue on WIKI. Is it fair to say one could interpret this as (a form of) bias? Kessler also noted that Twitter deleted ONE ACCOUNT in response to the 161 reports of harassments, which lends to the same narrative that the findings presented by Women Of Action Media had determined either no real threats had occurred or Twitter was biased in removing the accounts. Again; this is extending the larger story about the use of a Twitter hashtag. Additionally an article from September 2014 in Game Politics carried a POLL asking specifically "What Is #GamerGate About?" ... Around 1,855 votes were cast (our second largest poll ever), with the majority of them going to the option, rooting out malfeasance in game journalism. Around 70% of the votes (1,298 votes) said that the Twitter hashtag #gamergate represents finding and eliminating alleged corruption in journalism. Around 13% (242 votes) said that it really depended on the person using the hashtag. While six% (119 votes) said it was about silencing those who talk about gender issues in video games. And around 5% (91 votes) said that the hashtag was meant to show that "not all gamers" are bad people. Finally, 4% (77 votes) said that they didn't know what #gamergate is & 2% (28 votes) said the #gamergate hashtag is about eliminating discussions on cultural differences in video games. Poll Image The current GamerGate_Controversy WIKI is lacking news articles that credit any retort to the main controversy; That #gamergate is simply a hashtag and it is used in support of the ethics in journalism. LET ME EXPLAIN THAT STATEMENT: Another website similar to WAM, known as Deep Freeze independently researches the alleged corruption of gaming journalists. Some, I might point out, have written the very articles provided in the current GamerGate_Controversy WIKI. These same journalist were found conferring with one another through a mailing list on their Google Group Community. It was first reported by BreitBart. It included the contents of those emails along with the original email addresses. Needless to say WIKI demands viable news coverages, and the articles provided have credibility issues with the people writing them. The most common argument being GamerGate is an organized group of men, when in actuality, it's just a hashtag used on Twitter by a diversity of people from all over the world.

--j0eg0d (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi J0eg0d, It is an interesting question. I would think that "Gamergate movement" might be a more appropriate title for the topic you have in mind than "Gamergate controversy". That being said, I think it's unlikely to receive much support - for WP:POVFORK reasons as much as anything else.

Apologies again for the "collapse" above; I have explained on your Talknpage, but please let me know if you have any questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind that you collapsed it, I think it actually draws more attention to it than before, so thank you.--j0eg0d (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The admins applied their discretion as specifically appointed to do by the ArbCom to apply a sanction that has great potential to minimize disruption.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable for any Wikipedia article, TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom as I was here for the Scientology disruptions. I differ on the TALK section limitations. The Arbitration Committee muses reestablishing a fact-based dialogue within the TALK section and/or rename the article to the more appropriate Gamergate Harassment. This reasoning outlined for Zad68 and Bilby in the collapsed post; The initial "controversy" of #gamergate claims this Twitter hashtag is a "corporeal group". The hashtag alone IS an intangible asset used by some 250,000 separate diversities. That's two objectives defending good or bad relations; Such exponents of "all-or-nothing thinking" prompts every WIKI disruption. But considering the earnest demand for further elaboration; Why not adjudicate by segregating the claims? Wikipedia needs one GamerGate article respecting the "harassment" claims, as another GamerGate article structures the "ethics in journalism" narrative. --j0eg0d (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No. We do not consider "demands", earnest or otherwise, from humans trolls or ocean going mammals. We consider what the reliable sources state. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

->WP:CIVIL --j0eg0d (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't possibly imagine this scenario ever happening. Gamergate is and has been about harassing women. No reliable sources state otherwise.--Jorm (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to impede Jorm, but you're statement avoids the 12% issue by Women of Action Media. Likewise, the acclamations with Fast Company that expands on WAM's findings. Gamergate is a Twitter hashtag, not a physical entity or discernible group. Have you discounted the collapsed thread? I questioned if Editors overlook such events.--j0eg0d (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Trust me, I read it. And then I immediately discounted it. One - and seriously we're talking one, a single - primary source (and your interpretation of what that source says is fairly interesting if not inaccurate) (and yes, primary source) - is not going to erase or counterbalance the plethora of secondary sources that say, effectively, "gamergate is about the harassment of women". That's what Gamergate is about: harassment of women, according to a significant percentage of primary sources. You can't wiki-lawyer or whitewash this away. --Jorm (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies again, I'm unfamiliar with you. We've never spoken. You dismissed the primary & secondary sources for a conclusion definition, then I understand why further clarifications would be irrelevant to you. You further admit to discounting a factual percentile to favor a popular opinion. Fair enough. To each their own. Although alleging perceived interpretations as a factor in your judgment seems dubious. There are primary and secondary sources regarding the article's links to a group of journalists relating private information & strategy amongst themselves that are agenda specific. This is reason enough to not be so contemptuous towards pertinent communications.--j0eg0d (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, snerk snerk snerk, gamergate, milo, breitbart, ethics. I've heard it before. Let's move on.--Jorm (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Jorm, may I recommend becoming more familiar with WP:CIVILITY? After all, we are to assume Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, are we not? Mythiran (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

while we begin with an assumption of good faith when the evidence shows such an assumption is no longer valid, we are not obligated to continue to pretend we are living in a fantasy land of lollypops and bunnies where the sea lions have been exterminated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

respectfully, j0eg0d, I don't think your source is very good, nor the citation; All it's saying (if I understand you correctly) is that 12% of the harassment complaints reported to WAM in a certain time period were gamergate related. I don't think people are saying that Gamergate is "the only group harassing women on the internet" or anything, barring a few fringe pov sources. It's also not entirely what (to me) should be the topic of discussion over here; that's more appropriate for the talk page. Now obviously, you can't post on the talk page. I disagree with the restriction in part because it's just going to force discussion of sourcing etc onto random editors' talk pages, as well as random venues like WP:VPM; if they think it's annoying having to explain sourcing issues to the alleged "coordinated offwiki effort" under the old rules, imagine waking up and logging on to find a vitriolic debate raging over the legitimacy of e.g. Breitbart as a RS on your own talk page. Obviously, it's nice to be able to delete the discussion from your own talk page (as you are allowed to do), but as you might imagine going down that road will lead to even more frivolous whinging and useless ANI postings. And if you think people are bad at researching previous discussions now, imagine trying to defend "oh, you should have checked the history of User:RandomEditor553 and seen the discussion on this exact issue!" My opinion (as I have already stated, though I guess I'm refining it now) is that allowing discussion on the talk page, even stupid, frivolous, unproductive or even potentially wp:nothere discussion is preferable to scattering it to the wind. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've chosen to avoid circular reasoning in regards to staying on topic. Weighing "good or bad" descriptions is purely subjective, as well (again) it redirects from the original topic. I'm clearly in agreement about WIKI alterations; I'm suggesting ideas to improve the article's TALK page. We can circumvent demarcation through partition between "harassment claims" and the "#gamergate movement". The single comment made towards an amendment on the limitation block has been the word "no". Any fixation on what I source is irrelevant. Popular denigration of a separate affirmation being the "ethics in journalism" statement. Assertions of vexing currently controls the narrative. How can an audience understand what the #gamergate movement claims itself to be, when all we present is a negative opinion? Metaphorically this is the Bill Cosby WIKI dedicated solely to the sexual assault allegations. Bill Cosby and the Gamergate hashtag are larger than the allegations. Yet even in the TALK section, it's a resisted topic. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I endorse the "500 edit requirement" or virtually any other measure taken to address the disruption at the Gamergate pages. I have only superficially looked over the situation, but Wikipedia is clearly under attack by highly motivated individuals. WP:NOTHERE. Not only is this measure a valid step to protect the article, this step is a valid measure to protect the Community Members who volunteer to work there. I have the deepest sympathies for any responsible generalist editor volunteering to deal with that mess. Alsee (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Alsee The underlying bemusements aren't to scrutinize the Main Article's injunctions, but rather the preventive measures of it's TALK section. The consensus of motivation seems genuinely determined to silence a balanced narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0eg0d (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 May 2015

WP:BALASPS / WP:VALID we do not strive for a "balanced" narrative. we strive for a narrative that appropriately reflects the mainstream academic perception. We do strive to impede the use of Wikipedia for non encyclopedic purposes .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What this really demonstrates above all is the limitations of Wikipedia; that if a small group is able to control the media narrative running through reliable sources, then it's presented as encyclopedic fact without consideration for the biases of the media. You can find a great deal of information on GamerGate that is not used on the page presenting an entirely different perspective, but either because it's primary source or because it's not a traditional source then it's not considered reliable. The conflict between the article and reality is what's causing this entire problem, and the stricter and stricter measures being taken to control it only demonstrate that fact. It's worth considering that the further you need to go from "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" for some particular article, the further you should question your motives for doing so. Mythiran (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No, what this demonstrates is that there is a small group of people who truly believe (or say they believe) that Gamergate is actually about ethics in games and the rest of the world isn't buying that line of malarkey.--Jorm (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

e/c WP:V and WP:RS have been core to shaping content for a very long time and have served Wikipedia well. But that is off topic from the heart of the question here which is: Is Wikipedia better served in creating an encyclopedia if herds of sock accounts are forced off the gamergate controversy page for 30 days and forced to invest a more significant bit of time and effort before being allowed to swarm with their ark ark ark ark about decisions that policies and sources have fully rejected multiple times? the answer is clearly: Yes. Good faith new accounts will be more than willing to contribute an additional 20 days elsewhere before wandering into the minefield and having more experience with Wikipedia policy and culture will be better able to productively contribute. Its a Win for Wikipedia, a Win for Goodfaith New Accounts and a Lose for Outside Disruption Campaigns. You can hardly ask for better!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As someone who was essentially "kicked off" the gamergate article and talk page by the new restrictions, I heartily endorse the decision. Even though I don't get to vent my spleen (for a while, anyway!), I think it will result in a better article. And that's the real goal. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There's so much pessimism in maintaining the harassment article that you're ignoring the structure. For example, Wikipedia doesn't have a page dedicated to the sexual assault allegations made against Bill Cosby; We have a Bill Cosby WIKI that mentions the claims. The same goes for Gamergate. There's a much larger narrative than this small portion of "trolls" that attack women online. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's say, for the sake of argument, we grant that your claims are true. But then what does that have to do with the page restrictions? Dumuzid (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If arguendo? The TALK page should be unrestricted in allowance for the encompassing source of information. The recognition of harassment is a footnote of the totality; That singular agendum manipulates structure to the whole. My focus states limiting TALK is blocking both assertions from updating an in-progress issue. --j0eg0d (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The "much larger narrative" that's been suppressed by the vast liberal media cabal, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Why reciprocate with languid retorts? We're here to preserve & advance the topic.--j0eg0d (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand is that why if there's a counter-narrative out there, why you think it is restricted or biased in favor of recent accounts with comparatively little activity? Why doesn't the restriction cut across both viewpoints equally? Dumuzid (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The restrictions obstruct new developments; Not only to chronicle persecution claims, but advancements in Gamergate's "ethics in journalism". A movement some editors vehemently deny, even within this very topic. For example: The Federal Trade Commission crediting #gamergate supporters when rewriting FTC policies. Policies concerning Affiliate Link Disclosures. The bias is recognized by ablating or oppressing such information. --j0eg0d (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d: -- Forgive me, but again, I don't follow the logic of your argument. Established editors are perfectly capable of taking note of new developments in the reliable sources, and it's entirely possible for a new editor to be oppressive and deny good information. I still fail to see what this has to do with the restrictions on the gamergate page; I understand your complaint regarding the content thereof, but thus far you've failed to persuade me that the editor restrictions are a bad idea. Dumuzid (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm offering suggestions through conference. I'm presenting suggestions to "improve" rather than inhibit. That's the topic. I'm sorry for your confusion, but persuasions aren't an intent. I have neither argued nor deflected proposals or questions. I suspect your perusals are illiberal & disingenuous. I'll note that certain posters here are unreceptive people inducing unpropitious tripe. They're sterile to deliberation; Yet you're scrutinizing my intentions as persuasions in lieu of their ineffectual twaddling. --j0eg0d (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Meta: The next two comments, by TRPoD and j0eg0d, had five additional levels of indentation, which left them

loo

kin

g l

ike

thi

s on the right-hand edge of a smartphone screen. I've cut them down to size. --Thnidu (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Inhibiting disruption" is an "improvement" to the project of writing an encyclopedia. "enabling" disruption is "inhibiting our goal" of writing an encyclopedia. From a cost benefit analysis, you are way off. The "cost" of this proposal - the chance that a goodfaith new editor who has meaningful contributions to bring to the ggc article decides that they cannot wait 20 days to bring their contribution or find another method of bringing such contribution via another another method such as discussing with a 30+day editor on their talk page - is essentially zero vs the benefit - severely draining the ability of an organized troll campaign whose objective is to disrupt the project and who has been doing so for over 9 months - well you can see the obvious choice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I've just now noticed this post. Why reciprocate profusely by emotional responses? To encourage contention of this colloquial is inessential, as you meander confabulations into personal assumptions. I am neither inhibiting speech, suggestions, questions nor answers. I've added concepts to the topic to wit you've interpreted as hostile(?) Furthermore to surmise me as a recent editor(?) based on my number of edits perhaps? To purport novitiations as inane discussion anyway is blindingly autocratic to problem solving. Any conjecture is relevant, unless it be amended or recurrent. --j0eg0d (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not very WP:CIVIL of you, J0eg0d. I'd like an apology. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It was unnecessary of me to play devil's advocate in light of observable commentary. If I revealed dissimulation thorough observation then you have my apologies PeterTheFourth. Perhaps a more furtive parlance amongst allies can maintain inconspicuousness? --j0eg0d (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d: -- My apologies, I didn't mean to second-guess your intent, something at which you obviously took offense. I just assume everyone who posts in such a forum intends to sway others to his or her position. I'm not sure what it means for my 'perusals' to be illiberal and disingenuous, but I apologize for that too. I understand you have issues with the content of the gamergate article, and I understand you are making suggestions about that subject. More power to you. For what little my opinion is worth, I still believe (to my own detriment!) that the editing restrictions will lead to a better article. But reasonable minds can differ, as they say. Have a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

collapse off topic; per WP:ASPERSIONS - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is J0eg0d starting to sound a hell of a lot like User:Ghost Lourde in their vocabulary usage? --Jorm (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC) But using sock accounts would be unethical! I'm sure nobody here would ever consider using one, especially in this topic area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Says the editor whose first post was to an arbitration page... 168.1.99.199 (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC) No no, that person is not me, please stop cluttering up my notifications with this meaningless babble. Oh, and for the record, I feel slighted. Curse you. Ghost Lourde (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC) @Ghost Lourde: you do remember that you are topic banned? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC) All he's done is deny accusations about socking without even mentioning GG. This clearly isn't a topic ban violation. Bosstopher (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC) (e/c) You know that's my bad; I invoked him without thinking about his topic ban or that commenting here might violate it. He should absolutely get a pass on that.--Jorm (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As a side note: It's amazing to me, as someone new to all this debate, that accusations of sealioning get thrown around so lightly and freely, both here and anywhere else the ggc-debate and meta-ggc-debate and meta-meta-ggc-debate rears its ugly head. Ad Hominems have very little place in rational discourse, at least when the discussion is not regarding the personal character of the person being impugned. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Riffraffselbow, I thank you both for noticing this, and for calling it out. I could not agree with you more. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "sealion" accusation is more a comment on debate tactics rather than the person themselves, and while it might be construed as an insult, it is not strictly speaking an 'ad hominem' unless it is used as a logical inference. Sorry, this is just an annoyance of mine! Other than that, I am quite in agreement that it's best when the arguments here (or elsewhere, for that matter!) are not made personal. Dumuzid (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see "you just don't know when to stop" as much of anything but an insult in all but the rosiest of contexts. Forgive me if I'm not understanding that comic right. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. I think of it as sort of the semantic equivalent of "beating a dead horse," a metaphor enshrined in this very encyclopedia (at WP:DEADHORSE, of course). While I'd grant you neither expression has positive connotations, nor do I think of either as a sort of grave insult. To me, they're both a convenient shorthand for different, but related, phenomena. No one is obligated to agree with me, naturally! Dumuzid (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As an impartial observer; This "sealioning" accusation is unfamiliar. One may not ascertain the reviewer understands "exclusive slang" or believes it to be friendly exchanges. Some terminologies directed on me (I noticed) appealed to prejudice or special interests rather than reasoning. --j0eg0d (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

i believe you may have typed the wrong words into your thesaurus if it came out with "impartial observer" for someone who has been deep in the action for several weeks. Do you want to check again? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Thesaurus suggested "nonpartisan". No, I have no idea what this "sealioning" accusation is, and again (as you routinely fall off-topic) the observation was; No one can guess if a reader understands "exclusive slang" or believes it's friendly. Some choice words directed at me seems to belong to an affinity group. Sincerely --j0eg0d (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no opinion about the subject of this discussion, but in regards to a 500-edit minimum to be allowed to edit any specific article: the only way to accomplish that accurately and properly is to create a new level of page protection, and that page is this'a'way, and to create a new level user access level that will allow the editor to bypass the protection, which is that'a'way. I don't see the direction of this discussion leading anywhere, regardless of how it is going, unless these basic needs are established. Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)