Is there a template I can tag articles with that use too many non-free images in them? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  04:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SharkD: {{Non-free}} seems to do this job. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SharkD  Talk  04:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SharkD: You could also just send the images to WP:FFD if they are borderline or remove them and let the automated deletion tagging robot take care of them. Depends on the situation. If you don't mind me asking, what article? --Majora (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: The article is Action role-playing video game. I'm not sure there are more images than there should be. SharkD  Talk  06:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SharkD: So I've always been more strict with my interpretation of our fair use policy and to me, that article has way too many non-free images on it. Essentially one per section amounts to nothing more than a gallery of fair use images (just one that is spread out instead of in a nice neat row). A few of those images are so overused on other articles as well that it is severely straining our fair use policy (specifically WP:NFCCP #3) in my opinion.

This is a gray area. Wikipedia purposefully follows a far more strict fair use policy than actual US copyright law. We do that to encourage as much "free" content as possible. We are the "free encyclopedia" after all. In terms of actual US copyright law, those images on that article are probably fine (standard disclaimer: this is not legal advice but my interpretation of the complexities of copyright). I can see how someone would argue that each of those photos fits into our fair use policy. I can see how they could win that argument. I can also see how the opposite can be true. The grayness of our policy allows for both to occur. The only way to be sure would be to put the lot towards FFD as one nomination and see how others interpret it. --Majora (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays blocks can be indefinite, which means that their expiry has not been set. Was the code word originally "in-finite" as opposed to "in-definite"? In the Finnish Wikipedia there is still in use the translation "forever", which leads me to think that the original wording in English might have been something else than it's now. --Pxos (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember, it's been "indefinite." The idea is that it is not necessarily forever: a person could be unblocked later. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The idea being that there is no set expiry; the user is blocked until the relevant people decide they should be unblocked. 'Forever' would be incorrect because it implies the result can never be changed. Sam Walton (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can remember (just over 12 years now) the wording here WP:INDEF that blocks are "indefinite not infinite" has applied. This is quoted quite often at AN and ANI threads about blocks. Translations from one language to another can be tricky things and this may be one of those situations. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the intent had been "forever", any native English speaker would have used "permanent", not "infinite". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WikiBlame, the text in the dropdown list of block reasons was changed from "nfinite" to "indefinite" in July 2005 by Zzyzx11. From their contributions around that time, I can't figure out what prompted them to make that change however. Graham87 10:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unrelated to that diff, but there was some interesting early discussion about that here. Sam Walton (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That brings back memories from 12 years ago when we were more relaxed in edit summaries. That was for consistency. Despite what MediaWiki:Ipboptions had at the time, the block log was listing "with an expiration time of indefinite", not "infinite".[1] I knew what and where MediaWiki:Ipboptions was. I didn't know (and still don't really know) what system message is generating the "with an expiration time of indefinite" for the block log. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zzyzx11, the logs take all their contents from current system messages. If you were to change the wording "infinite" to "a very long time indeed", all the logs would change as well, and it really would read in the logs that in the year 2005 someone was blocked for "a very long time indeed", althoug at the time it would have read "infinite/indef/whatever". So the logs of a wiki are not a reliable archaeological evidence of how things once were. Only diffs are. --Pxos (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the word has really been verbatim translated from English to Finnish before July 2005, because the Finnish WP has used "forever", like, forever. Whenever there is a mightily confusing wording, I have learned to go back 10–15 years searching for the relevant term in English. Sometimes the original wording is miserable, sometimes the translator has botched things up. As long as Blame can be placed correctly on a Wiki, things are all right. --Pxos (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends,

Please enjoy this animation my computer took one week to generate. :) --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! I always forget that the globe is actually 3D and has other sides. --Majora (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Is that one month of coding and one week of computer processing time? You should add this to User talk:Jimbo Wales where this would be welcome relief from some of the stuff currently going on. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Jimbo needs the break. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Really cool. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

If you're interested, please read and follow the directions on this page

For the Arbitration Committee Clerks, Kharkiv07 (T) 20:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

The first time a reference appears in an article, it's the full cite. Thereafter, it is supposed to be the <refname="whatever"/> version (and not the other way around with maybe the full cite at the 10th occurrence and then the partial ones preceding it). I am pretty sure that this is a policy/guideline but I cannot find the WP page or shortcut! Help please & thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. Nothing says the full footnote needs to be first. It can be at any place the reference is used. If it is an Infobox or other template it would be better to have the full reference in the text instead. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using named references at all is not required. It would be acceptable for a particular page to use a citation style in which there are no named references, and citations that are used more than once are just repeated in full. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was just the form I used in this post (re refname, also since that is what the MOS pages use as their example as in WP:REFNAME lol). I know it's not required for a GA etc. At some point today I did find a statement that said the full cite 'should probably be first but that it wasn't a requirement" but now can't even find that WP-page. If anyone knows what I am talking about (I read it somewhere here on WP and I just want to know *where*) please put me out of my misery and post the link etc here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen that anywhere in any of the reference guidelines so I can't help. After several years of correcting reference problems, however, I can tell you that in practice the full reference tends to be wherever the editor first used the source in an article and is as likely to be several citations deep in the article as at the first usage. It would not be a good idea to require moving the full reference once it is added just because a new use comes in ahead of it. The parser doesn't care where it is. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to announce my grant proposal for the development of a gadget for editing Wikidata information (primarily used in the infoboxes) without leaving the Wikipedia page. My goal is to make one simple gadget helpful for all users which cover 80-90% of the needs, even if not everything is available for editing. In simpler terms, it's about creating an editor for "Wikidata infoboxes". Please write your opinion and wishes on the grant page. — putnik 09:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I accidentally refreshed an Special:EmailUser page a stack of times yesterday. I still seem to be throttled 20 hours later. Is there a time limit before the action is unlocked, or have I triggered some permanent lock? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our mw:Manual:$wgRateLimits in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php says:

		'emailuser' => [
			'ip' => [ 5, 86400 ], // 5 per day per ip (logged-out and new users)
			'newbie' => [ 5, 86400 ], // 5 per day for non-autoconfirmed
			'user' => [ 20, 86400 ], // 20 per day for users
		],

ip's cannot actually mail users. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]