I figured I'd ask here since none of the other possible talk pages have been very active, if at all.

I'm currently embroiled in a tiresome argument with Noroton (talk · contribs) (see our respective talk pages) over the fact I moved his List of mammals in Connecticut to List of mammals of Connecticut. Long story short, the only reason most lists in Category:Regional mammals lists are at "in" is that I haven't gotten around to move them (they were generated by bot in 05 or 06). Otherwise, lists of organisms are at "of", but he's now arguing that because lists in general (as opposed to the relevant topical lists) have both "in" and "of", I can't argue against placing this list at "in". Can anybody try to weigh in? Circeus (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore Circeus' attitude and stick to the subject: I did some thinking before I named the article and even changed the name once. When possible, the names of Wikipedia articles of any standard type should be uniform so that readers who already have a sense of how Wikipedia names things can search for an article with a minimum of fuss. We tend to name geography-specific "List of people" articles as "List of people from Foo" for instance. I don't see a consensus on "list of organisms" articles. Lists of birds by geography, for instance, seems to be done as List of North American birds. (I was wrong: Most bird lists use "of") I did see what looked like a norm for mammals lists at Category:Regional mammals lists, where the vast majority say "in". IF we're going to standardize "List of X by geograpnhy" articles, then we should follow common practice already in place unless there's a good reason to change it. The vast majority of geography-specific lists use "in Foo", especially when the items (buildings & structures, police districts) don't tend to move ("List of rivers of Foo" articles are an exception, and there are a few others). Take a look at Category:United Kingdom-related lists and Category:United States-related lists, and Category:Canada-related lists for examples.Noroton (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (later self edit Noroton (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC) )

The double "of" sounds clumsy and they don't belong to Connecticut. I can't see merit in the change, which shouldn't be done without consensus, and the "nowhere else does it like I think it should because I haven't got round to fixing those" is a bizarre argument. Colin°^Talk 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Of" categories would be reasonable for cases when the subject appears only in that country naturally, like certain trees, etc. "In" makes more sense if the subject appears in multiple locations. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. "In" makes more sense. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, there's a case to be made for "of", based on my idea that we should make the names uniform so readers can easily guess what the name would be. Would the readers we want to serve be familiar with the similar Flora, Fauna, Bird and Reptile "List X-species by Y-geography" articles? Most of them use "of" rather than "in": Category:Regional reptiles lists, Category:Fauna by country, Category:Fish by region, Category:Birds by country, Category:Regional bird lists, Category:Molluscs by country, Category:Biota by country, Category:Flora by country, Category:Trees by country. The other editors commenting here make excellent points as well, and outside of these species lists, "in" is much more common. As of this point, count me neutral. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, I've actually tried to mimic the categories (though these are actually pretty odd). If we categorise as "Mammals of", I feel weird to have a list at "mammals in". A point has been made in the past for adjectives, but it was decided against because too many countries have unwieldy or extremely ones. Circeus (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Stronger case for "of" with this diff, made by the creator of the article five days after creating it. Noroton (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For argument's sake, "of" usually means originating there, belonging there, endemic to. For example, the national flower/animal etc of a country is one native to the country. There are usually many national flowers/animals "in" a country that may not come from there and may be national emblems "of" other countries. (Is there a syllogism in there?) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I just chose whichever was most numerous in the existing lists, so "of" won. Too much analysis for too little return, the readers aren't going to give a damn. Put a redirect in for the of/in if it niggles at you. Yomangani^talk 12:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some sections showing lists of stubs which I personally think is really unnecessary. Since the list is really long, I'm thinking to remove ALL the lists of stubs since it looks like there's no way to put up eg. [[Category:Sabah geography stubs]] showing right on the texts, but if there is, please enlighten me. — Yurei-eggtart 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you want. Do you want to link to Category:Sabah geography stubs? Algebraist 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You just showed me how to do it. THANKS lol. — Yurei-eggtart 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

hi my name is amit. i m having win vista ultimate. when i burn any disc (DVD/CD).it is burned but when i insert it back it does not work. but inserted on another pc it works but at slower speed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit301 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please ask questions unrelated to editing Wikipedia at the reference desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's a subsection at the Ref desk here [1] where you can ask computer questions. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that whoever was attempting to correct an error on the Aitken crater article yesterday has inadvertently deleted most of the article. [2]

Can the article be recovered? How would I request this? Bonnie108 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC) --Bonnie108 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit appears to have been a test or simple vandalism; either way, it's been reverted. Please see Help:Reverting on how to recover a page to a previous version. Nufy8 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I claim "fair use" if I upload these three pictures [3][4][5] of aircraft in Reeve Aleutian livery for use in the Reeve Aleutian Airways article, where the copyright holder has granted permission? (evidence here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to claim fair use, given that you explicitly state the reasons why can they be used on Wikipedia. Johnny Au (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added them, with copyright notice and fair use rationale, all seems ok. Thanks for advice. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have intentions to retire as a contributor to video game articles, but having uploaded a large collection of fair use images for two years, I do not want to be burdened by the prospect of bot messages inundating my talk page whenever mass deletions of the images are imminent. I have thoughts about removing all fair use images before leaving, but given limitations of the right to vanish, which declares removal of certain works to be disruptive, it's not clear what I should do now. Large portions of images uploaded are now violating Wikipedia's fair use policies, and I have witnessed one user vanishing along with fair use images uploaded by the user. Any ideas? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} ╫ 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, not clear. You're retiring as a contributor, completely? If so, why do you actually care about your user talk page? Also, if for some reason you do care, is it that difficult to revert your user talk page to whatever its desired state is, whenever you happen (for some reason) be reading it? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 08:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm retiring as a contributor to all Wikipedia namespaces unless it's for the purpose of very minor maintenance or notices, and I have the intention of ceasing further management of images to avoid further copyright complications. I'm also expected to stop archiving my talk page (which involves separating bot messages and normal ones), so any failure to address the images beforehand will lead to bots overwhelming the talk page with messages that are clearly useless and dwarfing new user-composed messages. I have yet to determine the number of images I've uploaded, including those when I assumed another username (as User:25), but the number of images could still range from around 100 to several hundred. - ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} ╫ 10:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Go through your uploads. (There's a log for this.) Add fair use rationales to all of the images that you have uploaded, explaining how they are fair use in the articles that use them. No 'bot will visit your talk page. End of problem. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have months ago. But stricter enforcement of WP:FU (Policy section, Clause 3) has now made this workaround ineffective; I simply cannot use fair use images in excess anymore. - ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} ╫ 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as I am aware, what the 'bots are dealing with is lack of machine-locatable fair use rationales, not that. Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm still trying to get my head around the concept that your user talk page is going to be hit by hundreds of postings, intermixed with regular postings for non-bot editors, between your visits to the page, such that it will be difficult to undo bot edits and/or revert to a previous version of the page, particularly given Uncle G's comment. I suppose you could use Template:Bots to request that bots not post to your user talk page; some do comply and some do not (anti-vandal bots do not, for example). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The notices that I'm currently dealing with pertains orphaned fair use images as a result of a reduction of said images from relevant article (since fair use images must be used in at least one article, otherwise they are put on notice for deletion). This potentially covers the vast majority of images I uploaded.

        I'm still doubtful whether or not to opt for deletion of all of my images in tandem with my retirement. - ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} ╫ 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to get this article to featured article status but am concerned that it will get hit with comprehensiveness objections if I do not include all the pertinent missionary variants. On the other hand, there are hundreds of sex positions, many of which bear a slight resemblance to missionary, and I don't want to have too many false positives (i.e. Type I statistical errors). Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Missionary position/archive1 and Talk:Missionary_position#More_missionaryish_positions for more details. Any insight you can provide as to what criteria might be used to evaluate whether a position is indeed a subset of missionary will be appreciated. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have centralized the discussion to Talk:Missionary position/Votes on inclusion as missionary. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that Wikipedia is a work in progress and it's up to all of us to improve it. However, this particular topic is a special case requiring more and/or different attention than it has received over the last 4.5 yrears. It is chronically and utterly unreferenced and filled with dubious original research and occasional spurts of edits reflecting fixation on fetishistic topics (like "Wet clothing"). It like a mini-culture dish showing the worst side of Wikipedia. This unfortunate state has persisted and indeed flourished at least since 8 Aug 2003, so I can no longer believe that time will straighten it all out. It needs the attention of a real editor - or IMHO, it should be deleted or severely cut back. Thanks for high level editing attention or encouragement at least. NuclearWinner (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Try WP:PNA or WP:RfC for issues like this. Billscottbob (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about proposing it for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive? I think time will likely straighten it out, but it may be a long, long time before an organizing person or persons come along willing to shepherd the article to a decent state (despite some popular views, most of us know that while it may be fostered, none of Wikipedia's quality content arises directly from slow accumulation of small edits by many people—that results in the current state of the article). I don't think you'll get anywhere with deletion. From the posture of your post, I think you already know well that AFD frowns strongly on attempts to delete that which warrants an article but is in a sorry state. Cutting though, cutting is something all editors must do. When it's unsourced content, you have a lot of latitude to just go ahead and start.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that qualifies as encouragement in my book! I'll try as you suggest. Thanks. NuclearWinner (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of over the top discussion going on, concerning the merging of seperate articles into the minor chaacters article. I think independent users need to review the discusions and value the arguments on meris. Chase Edmunds, Mike Doyle (24 character), Lynn McGill are just a couple.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the consensus hasn't been in support of Lucy's demand to merge all these pages. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been solid arguments given by users which appear to have been ignored. I am looking for a way of resloving this issue and not going through rounds of personal attacks.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You make plenty of personal attacks yourself Lucy, like the other day when you called me stupid. So just stop with the holier than thou crap. And yes, all of these discussions have taken place, and you lost. The admins removed your stupid, pointless tags because you had NO consensus. You were the only one who wanted the mergers. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. Angelriver (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal atacks as per WP:CIVIL.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read that section as well, Lucy. Angelriver (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to talk personalities or persoanlly. I am here to discuss the issue at hand and find a way of resolving the issue.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue has already been resolved, Lucy. You failed, on numerous occasions, to generate consensus for the mergers. You were the ONLY one who supported them. That is why Theresa Knott, an admin, removed your tags. That is the reason that several of those characters' pages were restored and are being researched for notability issues with which you are so concerned. I think that whatever your issues are involving this show and it's characters, it's time for you to stop kicking the dead horse. Angelriver (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue was bought here to proivde a clean end to these ongoing discussions. I believe that no further constructive discussions can take place, from the current users contributing. Users on both sides have apparently strong feelings and verifiable policy has been bought by some users, although not necessarily by both sides. The resolution of this issue is needed to enable the encyclopedia to move forwards. --Lucy-marie (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a clean ending, Lucy. You failed to get consensus so several of the articles were restored. And of course you don't think that there can be any further constructive discussions--everyone disagreed with YOU. And as for users on both sides of the issue having strong feelings, you're the only one on your side of the issue. You're the only one who supported the mergers, and when you failed, you launched this desperate attempt to get your own way. And don't worry, Lucy--I'm fairly certain that this encyclopedia will continue to move forward regardless if some TV characters have their own page. Angelriver (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to use the Mike Doyle article as an example here of users on diffrent sides of the discussion. Angelriver, TunaSushi and Lan Di are examples of users on one side. While on the other side Lucy-marie, Lquilter and asyndeton are examples of users on the other side.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, Lucy, that you only mention three of the people who are AGAINST the merger. By my count, there are six opposed to your three in favor of merging. Once again, you lack consensus....Angelriver (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The users mentioned on both sides are examples and are not an exhaustive list. It is to illustrate that multiple users have differing opinions in the discussions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All the articles Lucy cites lack any real world notability and are only in-universe information. (I will note that the Mike Doyle article does have a possible real world reference, but NOTE/FICT require "significant coverage", so there would need to be more than just that.) Content from the articles can be moved to an wiki, and then concise summaries moved into the character list, assuming no other notable content can be found. --MASEM 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

These articles have JUST been restored and are being worked on. I think it's a little premature to start talking about merging them AGAIN already. Angelriver (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see consensus which states "An issue decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information or a question of policy being breached" and "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision."--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Lucy, where were you when the articles in question were being restored? Everything was discussed in the open on the talk pages, and there was little, if any, response from you. The articles that have been separated from the merged article are currently being researched for notability and references.Angelriver (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is pointless to paricipate in a discussion where the outcome is pre-determined before the process has begun. The issue has been bougth here to allow independent users the opporunity to review the articles based on the arguments poilcy and guidelines.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out earlier, you lost the consensus argument on most of these pages. However, you’ve decided to try again by claiming the consensus that was reached wasn’t real, simply because it wasn’t the outcome you wanted. The pages were unmerged after a consensus was reached to separate them, but within days and before anyone could do serious work on the pages; you started yelling to merge them yet again. Just remember it was an admin, not a regular contributor, who pulled nearly all of your merger tags. --MiB-24 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not here discus things as if people win and lose, we are here to discuss based on policy and guidelines. I would also like to point out that administrators are not the "gods" of wikipedia, they are just users who have administrative perks. The only people who are authority on wikipeida are the board of directors and Jimbo Wales. Please see WP:DEAL for Jimbo Wales' pesonal views on administrators.

I have come here to try and garner indepenedent views on the isuue and I am not willing to engage in personal attacks towads any user. WP:CON has allready been mentioned and sections quoted rendering the above arguments as moot. I would also like to point out that an independent uses has said that the pages best belong on a seperate wiki and they fail to meet the "significant coverage" required by WP:NOTABILITY/WP:FICTION.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that YOU are a god of wikipedia, and that we must all bow down to you and your demands, for they are the only ones that matter. And just who is your "independent user" and where can we view his/her comments? Angelriver (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The independent user is Masem who posted on this discussion on 10 January. I do not cliam to be a "god", I am simply saying that administrators are not a special class of wikipedian with extra "god-like" authority. I would like to discuss policy and guidelines with relation to this issue and not start personally attacking other users.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and even Masem admits that the Mike Doyle article may just have references to real-world notability. And as I pointed out earlier, these articles have just been restored and are currently being worked on and researched to provide the references required. Why are you so gung-ho to re-merge them before that can happen? Angelriver (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)'

The fact that they have been resotored does not mean a discussion on merging them can't occur, as was quoted earlier from WP:CON "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision."--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you, Lucy. I asked you why rush the mergers when we're just now trying to research notability and provide the requested references? More and more, this seems to be a personal issue to you, and I think that maybe you need to step back and see how much you're actually hindering progress on the site. There is an active call by Wikipedia to EXPAND coverage on TV shows and entertainment. Maybe you should take that into consideration during your continued, and may I say tiresome, attempts to keep merging these pages. Angelriver (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying rush ahead with anything I am simply trying to fathom out a way of resolving this issue and gain as many opinions as posible. Policies and guidelines must also be upheld at all costs during the editing of wikipedia, or else they become pointless. I also believe that in relation to the expansion of TV shows, refrence is primarily being made to the actual individual shows and not the individual characters in the shows.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There were plenty of opinions offered, Lucy. Most just happened to be opposite of yours. Oh, and please, please check your spelling and grammar. It is really painful to read some of your comments. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on the user and focus on the content of the issue at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you BELIEVE that reference is being made to TV shows and not necessarily the characters from the show. Can you back up that belief with official Wiki policy and guidelines? Angelriver (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are sourcing you comments regarding the expansion of TV shows, could you please provide a link to the source. I also think that WP:NOTABLE and WP:FICTION must be fuliflled for any individual article on anything fiction related, not just TV characters.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommended cooling off on the issue. We're trying to improve WP:FICT so there's a part that's not yet in there, and that is the fact that there is no rush to delete or merge articles - as long as there is good faith efforts to try to improve them, let the editors have a shot at working it out. If, say, in a month, they have no luck, or there are no further attempts (including discussions on talk page) to improve them, then a merge discussion is appropriate. In their present state, they do fail notability and a single list is a much better idea; they need a lot of real-world context to help and from that, trimming of the plot information for each, and one should also consider that there may be better notability demonstrated for the entire cast or a sub-set of the characters than for an individual characters. --MASEM 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

archaeoastronomy What's happening here? What to do about it? Insert: – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your username: 207.107.246.140 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please state your problem clearly and then we might be able to help. SpinningSpark 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The article Bali Starling has a number of photographs that credit the pic creator in the caption. I am pretty sure this is against Wikipedia style but I don't see anywhere that says don't do it (other than the rule against signing in article space). I am not sure what to do about this, if anything. Any suggestions? SpinningSpark 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem now corrected by another user: as you were troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to delete large chunks of the MetroPCS artticle. I thought of proposing it for deletion at first but then I thought that was too extreme. The section I have in mind are Plans which boils down to a price list and Commercials. I would like another opinion first in case I am still being too extreme. SpinningSpark 11:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree, and have removed major chunks of that article. As I say in the Edit Summary, WP is not a company brochure.- Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to get some discussion going on the Request for Deletion page, and I have attempted to follow the instructions, but I guess my brain is just too feeble to understand them. I have already posted the required notice on the page I want deleted — The Strand (bicycle path) — so now I just want it put onto the RFD page, too. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have successfully carried out all the steps to list the article for deletion. Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strand (bicycle path). Btw, RFD stands for redirects for discussion. Algebraist 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see it listed in the log, you can at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 13#The Strand (bicycle path).Billscottbob (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it appopriate to add its school anthem into a school article? I mean, any copyright problems or whatever thingy that's not cool about that? Thanks. — Yurei-eggtart 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics are copyrighted. Unless the anthem has been released to the school under a free license, then it wouldn't be right to include the lyrics. Even if the anthem is so old that the copyright has expired, it would be best to post it at Wikisource and link to it. Corvus cornix_talk 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me + found the guideline in WP:SCH, but what about school pledges? Does the same concept apply? — Yurei-eggtart 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

School pledges would be original literary works and subject to copyright also. Tt 225 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Vaughan Road Academy for example. It includes the description of the school's motto and mentions the entire lyrics of the school song. These are what school songs should look like when adding them into particular schools' articles. Johnny Au (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. However, like what Corvus cornix said (and what I've understood now), there would be violation of copyright if school song is posted up (with exception: read above). So how do I know if the anthem is under a free licence? Is it possible if I ask permission from the school authorities to post the school anthem and pledge up here (if so, how to prove that permission is granted)? — Yurei-eggtart 13:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You could contact the school via email and ask. The Transhumanist 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about something. I haven't asked the wider community's support or advice before in this regard, mostly as I have been lucky to be able to help others more, but I need it now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read and advise

Wikipedia is an amazing project and I have enjoyed participating enormously over the last 3 and 1/2 years. People of all backgrounds come together despite their differences, to contribute to a project that can only manifest by the active and volunteer participation for a common good that is larger and more relevant than what could be achieved by a single person, for-profit company, or organization. To achieve this, an ability to step back is needed. All of us come with our own baggage and personal interests, jobs, hobbies, beliefs, personal feelings to others, political inclinations, and the like. We come with these, and yet, we mutually and communally agree we will each leave them at the sign-in screen, so that the project can benefit from our contributions, while pursuing the creation of excellent articles that are informative, accurate, and neutral. Some of us, who have strong beliefs, opinions, and inclinations, may be challenged to edit these subjects, realizing we walk a fine line between our commitments to our beliefs and opinions, and our commitment to the project and the principles it embodies. Myself, I am affiliated with a group, I have my own interests, hobbies, and I have disclosed them in my user page, and have set them aside. In these articles in which I find myself challenged in this regard, I have adopted a behavior to disclose COI and contribute via talk page discussions, offering sources and insight for others to consider, and ensure that statements are accurate. Yesterday I was contacted by a UK journalist known for his anti-Wikipedia articles, who stated his intent to publish an article, based on allegations made against me off-wiki in one of the anti-Wikipedia blogs (WR), by people that oppose my beliefs and practices. Needless to say, these allegations are false and defamatory. Before this article is published, I would like to ask for feedback from the community, and take seriously whatever advice the community may want to give. If it is true that I have edited and contributed to Wikipedia well, then it is an off-wiki drama and I'll not bring it on site. It may be hard though if I ignore it and leave it off-wiki, only to see the community take it up and myself bound to say nothing to defend myself in order to avoid drama. Those who know me in WP know of my commitment to the project, also know that I avoid unnecessary drama that detracts from our ability to edit the encyclopedia. So its possible I'm wrong. But I'm concerned enough to want to check. I hope this will be forgiven if I have misjudged the concerns.

No support You get a vote of no support from me, as you have tried previously to block my insertions of academic material into articles concerning a corporations some have referred to as a cult. In your last act on the Landmark Education page, you were in the process of removing an academic article. You are heavily involved in the "cult aplogist" scene for lack of a better term, and fight objectivity and any forms of criticism. --Pax Arcane 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - I have had a number of occasions to observe your work as an editor and admin over the last 16 months that I have been editing on Wikipedia. In all honesty, I have always admired your contributions, and your willingness to go the "extra mile" in helping out people who needed technical advice or assistance in dispute resolutions. Hang in there, you have many who support you! Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - A factually inaccurate editorial obviously written just to create sensationalism and drive traffic to the website. The influence of one editor on Wikipedia is grossly misrepresented. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - Wikipedia gets attacked daily by people who either don't know how it works, or find its consensus methodology offensive, or both. It is interesting how many journalists, in particular, seem to find the democratization of knowledge disturbing. Perhaps they fear losing their power as opinion setters? As far as your COI goes, I think you acted entirely in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines, at least as I understand them. And advice? The old Australian (I think) motto: Nil illegitimus carborundum. (Don't let the bastards grind you down.) Rumiton (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

'No Support - Just looking at your talk page contributions to the articles this revolves around makes it clear you have shall we say very one sided views. You have made summary deletions of content when others asked for more discussion and in my opinion shoukd stay away from these articles. I myself have witnessed the Regster's negative style but in this cae I agree with them. While drawing on the knowledge of users is positive, in such emotive cases where neutrality will be so hard to maintain (writing about ones own guru) I think you need to step aside and work on other areas of WP. I would support a COI reccomendation on making nothing beyond grammar/antivandalism edits to articles about ones own faith etc. ora (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No Support - In your response to the article, you say "Finally, I believe I have acted in full transparency." You have not. As the Register article says, "he acknowledges a connection to Rawat on his Wikipedia user page. But he won't say how deep this connection goes ...". In your response, you say "I am not interested in disclosing any further personal information as disaffected former students, such as the people he used as a source, have in the past manipulated the media and harassed me and other students." But you are not being asked to disclose your home address or phone number; you're being asked to say whether or not you ever worked in Rawat's office, and when you took the "related position" that you disclosed you had. Neither of these facts is going to affect any future harassment, and as for "media manipulation", the belief here at Wikipedia - I think - is that the more information that is made available to everyone, the less power the media has to distort information. In short, despite the many errors in the Register's article, the core facts about what you did as an editor seem undisputed - and, at minimum, show a failure to disclose material information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No Support - If the influence of one editor is misrepresented why exactly you should be editing this?

No support: The Jossi in the the Register's article matches the Jossi here in Wikipedia, the Jossi that ignores all rules, blasts editors for actions that he himself engages in, and promotes the general lack of science in articles. Nobody doubts your commmitment to WP, and it would be foolish to doubt your status within the editors of WP. It is clear that you have a COI, a COI what has had other editors blocked and salted. Why cannot you see the COI for the trees. In addition you promote that you only follow consensus, well the consensus is that you should withdrawl from articles that you may have a COI with. I suggest that you do so. Shot info (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support The article in The Register was a deplorable piece of gutter journalism, packed with inaccurate and tendentious claims, that was defamatory to wikipedia and defamatory to Jossi. Jossi has clearly made an enormous contribution to innumerable articles and been helpful to countless fellow-editors. He has also shown great dignity in the face of slurs and personal attacks. Unlike many of his detractors - who hide behind a cloak of anonymity and refuse to declare their interests - he has the courage to be up-front with his identity and his viewpoint. DaveApter (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Jossi has seemed fair and level-headed in the face of controversy. Spacefarer (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

DaveApter and Spacefarer have a vested interest in supporting Jossi. --Pax Arcane 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Resign - best thing you can do for the long-term conflict of interest you have shown here. 74.233.86.244 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No Support - COI must prohibited one from any and all involvement in the editing of any articles on that COI subject matter. It is not a personal issue of whether one can or cannot stay neutral in this regard. The mere fact that there is a COI is an automatic disqualification. Look at the business world and even politics for the laws and regulations ito COI. Why should Wikipedia claim to be different in this regard!? This type of thing only hurts the reputation and tarnish the image of Wikipedia. --196.25.25.68 (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an essay that I read on wikipedia once that describe how wiki-articles naturally tend to just list random information rather than grow into cohesive prose. Anybody know what I'm talking about? Wrad (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for [6] ? SpinningSpark 21:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an article about puddlestoning or something like it. Has a picture of a rock. Wrad (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: User:Opabinia regalis/Puddingstone. Gracenotes^T § 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 Thanks for your help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On Template:2007-08 NHL season by team, I am trying to change the background colors for the groups. So, the color for Atlantic, Northeast, and Southeast should be background-color:#E32636;color:#FFFFFF; and for Central, Northwest, and Pacific it should be background-color:#00285D;color:#FFFFFF;. The reason is the first three are for the Eastern Conference, and the colors are Red and White, and the Western Conference colors are Blue and White.

I've used the paramater groupstyle = , but it is only letting me use one color for all of them. Any ideas? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the coding for Template:NHL. It uses style="background-color: #FFCCCC; text-align: center;" Flibirigit (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really help, as the templates are really different. NHL uses individual cells, while the season by team does not. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one way to do it:

But, I think the colours stand out too much and detract from navigation, given the divisions aren't even linked (fans reasonably know which conference/division teams are in, and non-fans wouldn't know the difference anyway). 99.227.7.124 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I planned on adding the links too. Going to give it a shot. Thanks for your help! I appreciate it; I couldn't get this figured out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a conclusion about using non-free logos of sports teams in the article about a league? Example: Image:Birminghammagicians.jpg. I just wrote a fair use rationale for the article Birmingham Magicians (the team itself) which seems fine. But how about the use in Blue Conference? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking if adding the logo to Blue Conference still constitutes fair use, the answer would be yes. The policy states that Non-free content should be used in multiple places (Criterion 7) and I think it is safe to say that it would meet all criteria. Billscottbob (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone with more experience than I have editing SVG files please go to commons:Image:Stephankiez.svg and see if you can remove the big black box? Thanks! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a suggestion to split this list that the new lists will be like this: "List of schools in state, Malaysia". (You're welcomed to join the discussion too xD) I'm asking here is that, IF this article is splitted, then what to do with the original article (List of schools in Malaysia)? Speedy delete? — Yurei-eggtart 06:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to keep the "List of Schools in Malaysia" article, and use it as an index of sorts. It would read something like "There are over X schools in Malaysia's XX states. (ref) The lists below detail the various schools found in each state." And then a list of the states, each linking to the "List of Schools in State, Malaysia", or however the correct terminology would go. You might also consider splitting the list into only two articles, with the first having the states named A-M, and the second running from N-Z, or however the names break down. You can then link internally to subheadings as needed, to simplify navigation within the overall list. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that if there's no objection once I remember/get the time to do so. Thanks :)) — Yurei-eggtart 10:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A user who had all his socks blocked wasn't logged in and removed all the sock tags from his socks' userpages. He'd like to know why, if the sock has been blocked (or "dead" as he calls it), why he can't remove the tags. I had reverted the anon changes as unexplained, besides which it looks like he's trying to cover his tracks, but there's no provision in the guidelines for the permanence or removal of such tags, is there? I think the tags should stay, but there seems to be no guideline regarding this that I can show him. Any help appreciated, thanks! Cross-posted from Template talk:Sockpuppet Katr67 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reporting it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents were they will a) be more knowledgeable of policy and b) likely to take immediate action against the perp. SpinningSpark 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Our page at Marlon Brando, Sr. is pretty much a copy of his page at imdb, but I can't tell which came first. How do we handle cases like this? Corvus cornix_talk 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If they are ridiculously close, I would suggest rewriting our article before someone from IMDb sees it.  :-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 03:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is here Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations. It seems a clear enough case to me, I will add the tag to the article and copyvio page. SpinningSpark 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has used an early 20th century reference to document an argument about the current position of a group. In fact, throughout the subsection. I suspect there is a template someplace that suggests a more current reference be used. I've looked for one in vain. Is there such a template? Thanks.Student7 (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no such template. Please make a request for that template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles. Thank you for your comments. Johnny Au (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I can construct a template. Is there a Wikipedia guideline to the effect that current references should be used. Again, I have looked to no avail. I would like to be able to cite a solid reference when editors check out this new template. Maybe even imbed it in the template message. Student7 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In a brief search I couldn't find anything too useful about old sources. The one I remembered was this one:

Some sources are generally unacceptable for use as references in Wikipedia: ... An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.

Unfortunately this is from Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, which is marked as 'historical.' I think there are some discussion threads about use of the 1911 Britannica where they warn about old sources and earlier-generation POV. Some digging might turn them up. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created a guide to assessing the risk of Wikipedia articles (especially for the use of researchers) as a subpage of my userpage at User:Billscottbob/riskassessment. It is not completely complete and I would like the help of other editors. I do not know how to proceed. Do I make it an essay or propose it as a guideline? I feel its not precisely either, so how do I proceed? I could leave it in my userspace but I would prefer it if it recieved greater attention so that it could grow. Any suggetions welcome. Thanks. Billscottbob (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an essay, not a guideline, I think, since you seem to be aiming it at readers, not editors. And I strongly suggest that you stop calling it a "risk assessment" and start using the term "reliability assessment", and, in general, be less wordy. For example:

• In order to help Wikipedia become more trusted this guide has been created to help assess the risk of different articles as some articles are more reliable than others

could be:

• "This guide has been created to help readers assess the reliability of articles."

With the goal of moving this at some point to Wikipedia:Assessing reliability, or something similar.

Also, the tabbed form is quite unusual, and since (with some judicious editing) the combined four pages should fit fairly well into one page, I suggest you don't pursue the tabbed approach.

Finally, you seem unfamiliar with the concept of coloring text based on calculated trust levels. This is admittedly experimental and not useful for current versions, but it's worth mentioning, I think. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone figure out what happened here? The table is disastrously screwed up. Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with the table? It does not look very nice when its collapsed but it looks fine to me when expanded (click [show]). Maybe browser problem? What are you using? SpinningSpark 13:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the table collapses properly per the wiki or HTML markup. You'll have to modify the table in order for it to display different headings when collapsed. Question: what do you want it to display when collapsed? SharkD (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SevenMass has reorganized the Talk page of 4X game, reorganizing the threads by topic instead of date. If you look at the time stamps, you'll notice that a lot of the threads are out of chronological order. I was wondering if it were proper to revert this and leave a warning on the user's Talk page. Or, is reorganizing Talk pages in this way an OK practice. SharkD (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's uncommon, but it's not prohibited - see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. The critical thing is whether the refactoring was constructive - if it made the conversations on the talk page easier to follow, then leave it as is. Or tweak it a bit, if the refactoring seemed to favor one side or another in a disagreement (if there was one).

In general, if there is a disagreement about the fairness or accuracy of refactoring, then it's best to copy the refactored page to another page, returning the talk page to what it was, while providing an alternative view of reality (so to speak) on the refactored page. (If this happens, it's probably best if conversations continue on the original talk page.) But if someone goes to the trouble of refactoring and it does improve things, that's good. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noted that there are articles on Italian names, French names, German names, Spanish names etc, but no article on English names. This seems like a major gap, so much so that I'm hesitant to start filling the gap, as surely someone must already have thought of it, in which case its absence must be because of some policy decision having been taken. Any thoughts on this? --rossb (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then, create the article with English names. Be sure to add the article into the world names template when you are done. Johnny Au (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, no policy would preclude an article with that name, it's just that no-one's gotten round to writing it yet. Be bold and give it a stab :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was just making sure my converted avi file works in ogg theora. It doesn't want to work with my codec in WMP, but it seems to work fine on Wikipedia. Here it is: Smartboard.ogg. Thanks! --Weatherman1126 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't get it to play on the Wikipedia page, which came up using QuickTime (but then I always find QuickTime to be full of bugs anyway). I tried downloading it and playing it in Windows Media Player and that didn't work, but it does play okay in VLC. So, the video file itself was converted and plays fine. Just I found the technical issues of OGG Theora hard to get around. (The first person who comes up with a perfect all-problem-fixing browser plugin for OGG formats will be an Internet hero.) • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am the principal author of the Interchange fee page, which I overhauled nearly a year ago now. After a vandal came through some months ago, and was successfully rebuffed, the administrator Georgewilliamherbert put a lock on the page.

However, it appears that his lock has something to do with the page being derived in some part on another article entirely. Well, this was indeed once the case. That's why I rebuilt it from the ground up. It is no longer based on this original page, so I believe this lock is in order.

The real problem now, however, is I cannot get a response from this admin. I have posted on his talk page once and then twice, the second time letting him know I would eventually come ask someone here for assistance if he didn't respond in a timely manner. Well, it's been about a month since I first asked and it looks like my request is not the only one being ignored.

All I ask: would somebody please unprotect the Interchange fee page? --Livefeeordie (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This might get done more quickly if posted at WP:RFP. Algebraist 04:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take my request there. --Livefeeordie (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone added the following comment to Talk:Balanced ternary:

I have added a suggested notation ("bop") which is visually symmetric. Unfortunately it's from a colleague who has not chosen to publish it elsewhere. I find it quite appealing, and I think that putting it in Wikipedia (rather than letting it vanish) is a reasonable approach. Snezzy (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this from the article as it is obviously original research. However it is quite a nice notation, so I would like to be able to tell him here he can publish it. Would "Wikimedia Commons", or "Wikiversity" be suitable?

Well, according to WP:OR, you need to use information from scholarly journal articles for Wikipedia. However, you are free to add it into Wikiversity. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)