Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Flockmeal (talk | contribs)
4,411 edits
m Typo
Flockmeal (talk | contribs)
4,411 edits
mNo edit summary
Line 307: Line 307:
***Thank you for sharing your opinion. -[[User:BuddhaInside|BuddhaInside]]
***Thank you for sharing your opinion. -[[User:BuddhaInside|BuddhaInside]]


****I agree with Angela and Hephaestos, constantly blanking your User and User Talk pages is childish vandalism. Fellow Wikipedians should be able to contact you, and the easiest way for them to do this is through your talk page. If you don't want to have a talk page, don't use Wikipedia. -[[User:Flockmeal|Flockmeal]] 04:13, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
****I agree with Angela and Hephaestos, constantly blanking your User and User Talk pages is childish vandalism. Fellow Wikipedians should be able to contact you, and the easiest way for them to do this is through your talk page. If you don't want to have a talk page, don't use Wikipedia. -[[User:Flockmeal|Flockmeal]]


==Image Copyrights==
==Image Copyrights==

Revision as of 04:15, 15 September 2003

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

Post a question now if you don't want to wait for the whole page to be loaded. On the other hand, please consider skimming through this page to see if your question might have already been asked (and even answered) by other people already. Also, please do not push the "save page" button multiple times when posting this way! The server is overloaded, but it usually will respond eventually, dutifully adding your question to the page several times in a row.

Related pages: Mailing lists - IRC - IM a Wikipedian - Talk pages - Wikipedia talk:Software updates


File:Village pump yellow.png

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

  • To raise a bug report, or suggest a feature, see bug reports.
  • To request peer review of an article you've written, see Wikipedia:Peer review
  • If you have other questions about anything else in the Universe or life, try Reference desk.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

  1. Place your questions at the bottom of the list
  2. Title the question (by typing == title ==)
    • If you use the edit link above, just enter a subject
  3. Sign your name and date (by typing --~~~~)

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

Moved discussion

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

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

Trigger happy?

move to Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

As a relatively new Wikipedian, I have a suggestion for the old hands... be a bit gentle! To see what I mean have a look at [1].

Now, I'll stick around after such rudeness, but many will not. Hmmm?

Here's a further suggestion... wait at least 60 minutes before reverting or deleting new work unless it's really bad. Look at this history or this one for what I mean. The article in question is still a stub, and will remain one until I do a little more research. But it's a useful one IMO and will grow into a good article in time.

I'm not going to attempt to put Felsen back into the list of people a third time. If the article belongs in Wikipedia, then the name belongs in the list IMO. But some people make a special effort to fix such things and I expect they will find it eventually.

Does the article belong? IMO more than eight million book sales, hundreds of magazine articles and a place in a University archive are a good claim. In fact I think Wikipedia might be the best place to store and find such information.

If not, I guess it will go onto requests for deletion, and I'll have learned something, and no complaints.

Interested (as always) in other opinions and particularly in ways I can and should change my methods of operation to avoid this sort of thing. I know it ain't a perfect world. But I think we can and need to do better than this if we're to encourage new contributors. Andrewa 07:57, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrewa, firstly welcome to Wikipedia. I've looked at the history and I have to say, I can't see what you're making a fuss about. An 'article' that contains only an external link isn't really an article at all. Far better to put a least a couple of lines of text. Since you did eventually do that, i would say write a two line stub first,offline. Then create the article. Theresa knott 08:46, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

G'day Theresa, and thanks for the feedback.
Do you really think the update described as rm unknown academic is justified? I'd hardly describe someone who sells 8 million books as unknown, nor someone whose highest teaching post was part-time lecturer as an academic. This update was pure malice IMO, a pointless reduction in Wikipedia content, and particularly strange as the perpetrator has since done some good work on the stub to which the link used to point!
And did you look at the actual content that was added to the article? I felt it was flippant, but worse it was both misleading and inaccurate. I agree that a link is not an article, and I'd never intended to leave it as that. The thing I wanted noted from the history is that the whole episode took less than 60 minutes from start to finish, even with the delays when I (foolishly) reverted what I still think was a pointless and misguided edit.


Of course it's a lot less work to find new articles and hinder those writing them than to search for the many sub-standard ones that have existed unchanged for months or in some cases years. Andrewa 16:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrewa. I got trounced within (what seemed like) minutes of my first efforts when I joined this motley crew a month+ ago (my stub had a whole sentence and was my start for a great article since abandoned; things change). I've come to realize that it is MORE the unexpected shock that someone was actually watching my work and reacting quickly and negatively, and LESS the brutality of it. After a while, you will relax, get used to others walking all over your prose, and get into the swing. Comments of any kind without a smile seem more hurtful than they really are. - Marshman 09:28, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not smiling, but I think I'm more worried about the inefficiency than about the insult. It's annoying to have to rearrange my work habits to avoid interference that adds nothing to Wikipedia. I'm not objecting to the deleting of non-articles, and while the rudeness is of concern it wouldn't be an issue if the criticism were in any way justified. An hour doesn't seem a lot to ask to write a proper stub, but I was given less than 6 minutes. You don't think that there's some risk that other potential contributors have quietly disappeared because of this sort of thing?
I'm wondering whether there is some instruction I have missed or misinterpretted, but it's possible that there is a need for some sort of guideline for how long an article can stay in a partly-written state. Of course it should always be in a state that isn't embarrassing if someone looks the article up, which is why I once reverted the flippant comment that was added.
Perhaps that guideline is zero time. If so this should be clearly stated (and perhaps it is and I've missed it). Personally I doubt that's the best way to go, especially if we want to attract a range of contributors. I think a new article that is just a link or a definition or similar should be left for a while, and I've suggested 60 minutes. I certainly don't think that a new article should be renamed within that time, as happened on this occasion (although I agree with the rename}.
But nobody else seems to think that what I encountered was hasty or uncalled for. That's fair enough, I asked for feedback and I'm grateful for it. Andrewa 16:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think there are practical issues in asking for a 60 minute wait. People find problem articles through recent changes, which shows just the last few minutes work. You can use the preview button to check your work, and only press save when it is ready to go live. This way, it wouldn't show up in recent changes and no-one would come to 'fix' it. Obviously the rules of not biting newbies and Wikiquette should still be adhered to though. :) -- Angela 17:04, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that's what it's boiling down to, isn't it? I think I by and large agree with User:Andrewa. In particular, I think a message on the talk page is much more important than fast changes and revertions. --Ruhrjung 17:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
But in the case Andrewa is talking about (Henry Gregor Felsen), it wasn't revertions being made; it was content being added. Andrewa seems to have objected to that content when as far as I can tell, Hephaestos was simply trying to make the article into a stub rather than something which may otherwise have been deleted. And I don't see why Andrewa is complaining about rudeness when he is making edit summaries along the lines of "revert utter stupidity" on the article in question. Angela
I think Heph behaved more or less correctly given what he saw in front of him... listing a non-article on VfD then removing it from there when content was added. He shouldn't though have added his 'content'. It wasn't content but a facetious comment. Not the highest standards of Wikiquette to which we all aspire!
On the other hand, Andrew came running to Village Pump to complain rather than use the talk page to explain his strange editting style (writing an essentially blank page and then adding content later). There was no need for that. They'll both know better for next time. Let's move on! Pete 19:21, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Looking back on what I wrote with regard to the Henry Gregor Felsen article, I came across too rude, and for that I'm sorry, and would like to apologize.

I would appreciate it, however, if Andrewa would realize the situation I was looking at. We do not need "articles" which consist of nothing but a link to an external site. I and most others usually delete these on sight; in this sense I think I was unusually lenient in letting it stay. When I found hardly anything about this person on the web, I suspected I was dealing with another "famous celebrity" along the lines of Daniel C. Boyer. When the author apparently didn't even know how this person's name was spelled, I suspected this article might be someone's idea of a joke.

We get scores of outright garbage "articles" here every day, and most of them look just like this one did when it started out. I see now that this one is legitimate, however it would help things immensely to get an article at least up to stub level before hitting "post". - Hephaestos 19:30, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some comments:

wait at least 60 minutes before reverting or deleting new work (Andrewa)

I think that's often good advice. If you revert a major change a couple of minutes after it's made, then consider if you're spending too much time reverting, and not enough time thinking. Also consider whether you might be hindering more than helping.

some people make a special effort to fix such things and I expect they will find it eventually. (Andrewa)

An excellent attitude to take: the long term view. Wikipedia is a work in progress, We don't need to have (indeed, couldn't have) every article perfect right now. Many Wikipedians could learn a lot from Andrewa's approach here.

Andrewa mentioned the many sub-standard [articles] that have existed unchanged for months or in some cases years ()

We certainly shouldn't lose sight of the old in the focus on recent changes. Techniques for finding old articles that need editing include Special:Randompage, Special:Ancientpages (actually ancient changes), Wikipedia:Shortpages, wikipedia:duplicate articles, wikipedia:pages needing attention, wikipedia:find or fix a stub, wikipedia:NPOV dispute, etc. Even plain old surfing will get you to articles that need work soon enough.

I'm more worried about the inefficiency (Andrewa)

Part of the answer is that if Haephaestos wants to spend his time inefficiently... well, it's his to waste - as long as it doesn't cause you to waste yours. A second part is that wiki-editing is really efficient in other ways, so a bit of wasted efficiency due to vandalism, or two folks at cross-purposes, isn't a major problem. The third part is that Haephaestos has read your feedback, and will no doubt act a little differently next time.

You don't think that there's some risk that other potential contributors have quietly disappeared because of this sort of thing? (Andrewa)

I think they probably have, which is why it's so important not to bite newcomers. Haephaestos is hardly the worst offender in this regard. Indeed, I was surprised by his initial approach on the Felsen page, as he's normally a model Wikipedian. Unfortunately, our copyeditors, like our authors, are generally human, so this kind of incident does crop up from time to time. :-( Martin 19:59, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, and also with the comment from Angela that I led with my chin by calling the original edit "utter stupidity". I apologise to Wikipedia for that lapse, but I do point out in my defence that the "content" in question was both flippant and inaccurate, and IMO an embarrassment to Wikipedia. And, that it was entered not once but twice, and was not the only inaccuracy, and that none of these inaccuracies would have been posted with even rudimentary checking (I find the claim that a web search was made incredible, try it yourself). And that I didn't respond to any further provocation despite all this.
Nobody likes being treated like a troll (except perhaps a troll, hmmmm). The comment that Hephaestos "came across too rude" still worries me. Even a troll is not likely to respond well to agro. But IMO even the most elementary checking would have established my credibility. What are user pages for?
I've learned a few things. I will make sure in future that my stubs are good stubs right from the first save. Part of the reason for the problem is that I've been involved in two other serious Wikis, and my method of editing (first create, then fill) was normal on both of them. Evidently I'm unusual in this, as others have called this a strange method. I find renaming or deleting a page less than six minutes after it was created and while it obviously still needs work far stranger! This may be a problem for a few others from similar backgrounds. Food for thought?
I take the points about the need to delete many rubbish pages, and I had not realised it was this bad, that's another thing I have learned. I'm still not convinced the delay idea is a bad one, in fact I think it might be an even better one in view of this. Is there any way of doing searches for, say, pages created in the last two hours and then unchanged for an hour? It doesn't sound too hard, and might deprive some vandals of the fun of an instant reponse.
Finally, despite one comment above I'm glad I raised it in the Pump. Yes, let's move on, but let's learn from this too. My genuine thanks to all who have contributed, including Hephaestos. Andrewa 05:47, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)



rename the pump

delete

I think we should rename the village pump. It's meant to be like the office water cooler, right? Don't people talk about TV soaps and stuff round the water cooler, not office work? I've never worked in an office, so I wouldn't know. CGS 15:23, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).

...having said that, the pump is a verritable institution and should stay. CGS 15:27, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).
No, people bitch about their colleagues around the water cooler. We've got Wikipedia:Problem users for that. Angela 16:48, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)
Leave well enough alone IMO. Remember the fun we had when it was moved once before? Andrewa 16:55, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Surely the point of the name of the olden "village pump" used to be that a bevy of old farm ladies stood around said pump and held forth about those unfortunate ones who in their opinion had offended against the public mores of the community. So what's wrong with the name of "Village pump? Dieter Simon 23:08, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My wife has seen me reading the village pump and asked whether that means there is a village bicycle. -- Wapcaplet 17:41, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Redirect syntax

Move to Wikipedia talk:Redirect or remove

Is there any reason why redirects are generally put in capital letters? I mean, most redirects since I arrived here have been in the form "#REDIRECT foo" rather than "#redirect foo", and that being the prevailing way of doing things has led me to do it like that as well. But is there any practical reason for it, or was there ever? --Camembert

This is a remnant from the old UseMod software which Wikipedia initially used. In UseMod, redirects are case-sensitive and have to be in upper case letters. In the new MediaWiki-software, they are not case-sensitive.—Eloquence 04:35, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

Incremental 'pedia updates?

move to Wikipedia talk:Database download

Once the full Wikipedia is downloaded, can smaller periodic updates covering new stuff and changes be obtained and used to synch the local? --Ted Clayton 04:26, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, you can't. I've been thinking the same thing myself. I think we need to:
  • Allow incremental updates for all types of download
  • Allow bulk image downloads
  • Package a stripped-down version of the old table in with the cur dumps, where the revision history (users, times, comments etc.) is included, but the old text itself is not
  • Develop a method of compressing the old table so that the similarity between adjacent revisions can be used to full advantage
-- Tim Starling 04:38, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

Would it be easier to have incremental updates on something like a subscription basis? The server packages dailies or weeklies and shoots them out to everyone on the list? During off hours, mass-mail fashion?

Can you suggest sources or search-terms for table manipulations treatments, as background for stripping and compressing? --Ted Clayton 03:14, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to continue this on wikitech-l, because it's very much on-topic there. See Wikipedia:Mailing lists for more information. -- Tim Starling 12:48, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Wikitech-l thread on incremental backup

formeruser:Isis

Anyone know why Isis left exactly? For wikihistory.-戴&#30505sv 05:30, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Did she leave because she doesn't agree with WP's legal future? From my understanding, she left because she thinks that Tarquin insulted her and her ability as a legal worker (re: copyright status of an uploaded image). Subsequently, she attempted to sue Wikipedia for this, but the matter was inconclusive. The attempts to resolve the incident was private, by a couple of representative Wikipedians. Consequently, there was no trial, but no public reconciliation either.
--Menchi 05:39, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
IIRC it started with this diff: [2]. Tarquin said "Isis' interpretation is mistaken. Photographs are covered by copyright". Isis saw this as a slanderous accusation that Tarquin knew more about law than she. She demanded that Tarquin retract it, and when he didn't, she stated her intention to sue. She was obviously in a litigious mood since her 6 month suspension for bad behaviour had just finished and she was allowed back in the courtroom again. Anyway, the discussion spread to about half a dozen different places: User talk:Tarquin, User talk:Isis, User talk:Jimbo Wales and wikien-l. Tarquin declared that he'd had enough and he was leaving Wikipedia, which prompted an immediate community response now in User talk:Tarquin/Archive 3. Isis left at about the same time, saying that she was going to file a lawsuit shortly thereafter. If the lawsuit ever materialised, I didn't hear anything about it. Tarquin came back after a short time. -- Tim Starling 06:14, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
I understood User:Eloquence mentionned once to me that Isis admin status was not volontarily removed. ?
Suing just because someone implied he knew law better than her ? My...
what do you mean 6 months suspension ? on wikipedia or in real life ? Anthère
As a lawyer in real life. --Menchi 06:33, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'd better get my facts straight, hadn't I? I don't want to get sued as well. I seem to remember there being a suspension that ran out a couple of months before the event in question, but I can't find it at the moment. There was this one year suspension, this three year suspension, this reciprocal action, this one year suspension... Nope, can't find it. -- Tim Starling 07:01, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Oh. Well...I read the archive at Tarquin. I remember part of the story for what I read on the ML. Then left for holidays, and never really understood what really happened in the end. I think that if a contributor was legally threatened by another contributor, that is something that should be mentionned in the history of Wikipedia. It certainly could happen again. But not if it pains Tarquin. I am glad he came back :-) Anthère
I was also interested in looking over this incident in Wikipedia's history. However, perhaps someone should look through these "deleted" materials before publishing them again publicly or summarizing them to make sure there is no defamation or personality/privacy rights violations. While any disciplinary decisions that are published are part of the public record commenting on them may require tack and deference to the unreolved nature of allegations (i.e. wait until any claims have been permanently extinguished before writing the history on them). Alex756 10:08, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Guys, if you think it's useful to document the whole sorry affair, then go ahead. As far as I am concerned, the matter is ancient history. -- Tarquin 10:15, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I guess I'll close the thread I started-- thanks Tarquin, and Alex, well be looking fo'wad t'yer brief on the matter ;). -戴&#30505sv 17:40, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC) ps.I wouldnt be too worried about defamation suit, just simply for archiving the legal argument --keeping any speculation about "reasons for leaving" separate.-SV

personal references

move to Wikipedia talk:Make omissions explicit

Could someone inform a new user what is the rule about writers referring to themselves? In my piece on Dirk Hartog I said that I had seen Dirk Hartog's plate in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam last year. This was instantly removed. Is this not a fact that may be of some interest to someone? Who makes these decisions? Dr Adam Carr


Articles should be written in the third person, so the use of "I" should be avoided at all costs. Usually in a case like this, other Wikipedians would leave advice or guidelines on your Talk page, but this cannot be done unless you login, but it appears with Dirk Hartog you weren't logged in at the time. Fuzheado 09:19, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The comment you added ("I have not been able to locate any biographical information on Hartog") would be better on the article's talk page, which is where I have now moved it to. It doesn't make a lot of sense in the article as no-one knows who the "I" refers to. The article has many authors. See Wikipedia:Most common Wikipedia faux pas for an explanation of this. Angela 09:24, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments: if that's the policy I will adapt to it. But, Angela, after you removed "I have not been able to locate any biographical information on Hartog," I then wrote "there does not appear to be any biographical information on Hartog," which is not a first-person reference but a statement of fact (at least as far as I know). That was also deleted. Is there a rule against commenting about sources or lack thereof? AC
No, but some Wikipedians get a little over-zealous. ;) It's all a matter of presentation: if you wrote something like Despite the significance of Hartog to the history of Australian exploration, he has been largely ignored by historians, and biographical information is sparse it wouldn't attract a second glance. Personally, I prefer the plain-language version, but there you go. It's a strange place, the 'pedia. Tannin 09:49, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything. I just copied your comment to the talk page. It had already been deleted by that time. Fuzheado removed the comment you mentioned above with the edit summary "Took out the speculation, since it's not really part of the facts". I can understand why as there isn't really evidence for this - just one anonymous IP claiming that he could not find something does not make it true or indeed worthy for inclusion in the article. The Wikipedia:Verifiability rule may be the one most relevant here. Hope that helps. Angela 09:53, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Comments about the result of your search and speculation would usually be considered background info to be discussed in the Talk pages. Only if research results were "newsworthy" would it be appropriate. Think for a second about what you might see in World Book, Britannica or a history book. I hope you don't take this as a rejection of your contributions, but simply as re-filing them into the right places. With only wiki mechanisms to form the social basis of the online community, the editing and deletion of info might seem abrupt and rude to our face-to-face social sensibilities. So hopefully people hang around long enough to see that Wikipedians are, in general, pretty good natured, cooperative and kind. And your sense of what contributions are appropriate, useful and friendly will adapt. Fuzheado 10:04, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Consider wikipedia:make omissions explicit - just add (to be written - biographical information). Martin 15:51, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But not necessarily on the article page - see Wikipedia talk:Make omissions explicit. Angela 16:40, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

table of contents in printable version

do people think the table of contents [showhide] thing should be displayed when looking at a printable version of something?

On paper, it's pretty easy just to scan an article for the headings you want without needing a toc. Tristanb 10:01, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The TOC should definitely be included on paper. You could argue that on a web page it is easier to find something as you can use ctrl F to search for something, whereas on paper you actually need to read it, so the TOC is probably more important on paper. Angela 10:25, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Public Domain Paintings

move to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights Is a pre-20th century painting in public domain?

I think it's in the public domain if the painter has been dead > 50 years. Date of the painting itself is irrelevant. IANAL. CGS 16:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).
The paintings themselves may be considered to be in the public domain, but photos or illustrations of the paintings are copyrighted to whoever made them or possibly their heirs. CyberMaus 17:21, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Are you sure? I thought you can't copyright a digital representation of another image (in this case a painting) unless it is a derivitive somehow (although that could be something as simple as cropping). CGS 18:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).
Yup. It doesn't matter what the digital image is a representation of. The digital image itself is copyright protected even though it's a scan of a photo of a photo of a picture. Keep in mind that the original photo is also copyrighted so that it's possible that the digital image itself may be in violation because permission was not obtained from the original image's owner. The Visual Resources Association Guidelines propose exceptions for educational institutions (I suppose it could be argued that wikipedia qualifies as an educational institution) in some circumstances, but these have no legal foundation. BTW IANAL :) CyberMaus 20:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights for previous discussions of this. Angela 20:44, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

The end of *wikipedia.com

delete when fixed

What about changing the text in the *wikipedia.com:

<<We're sorry, but the server on which this site once lived has failed. We are working on getting the machine back in place. Until then, please accept our heart-felt apologies for the inconvenience>>

for another that indicates the change (while is not possible to redirect). Now, I'm alone in the Catalan one :'( Llull 16:37, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've asked Jason to set up an interim redirect; hopefully will be up soon. --Brion 17:42, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the 9/11 wiki? I thought it had been set up and the tribute articles moved there, but then I found Lorraine G. Bay on the Ancient Pages list. Why are these articles still here? Tuf-Kat 21:02, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know why the article you mentioned is still here, but the 9/11 wiki is here. --Flockmeal 21:18, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deletion Requests

Angela has asked that personal subpage deletion requests be posted here instead of in Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted:

    • The answer is no. I am fairly confident that, with regard to this account, the answer will always be no. Constantly asking and reverting is simple vandalism on your part. - Hephaestos 01:00, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • I agree with Angela and Hephaestos, constantly blanking your User and User Talk pages is childish vandalism. Fellow Wikipedians should be able to contact you, and the easiest way for them to do this is through your talk page. If you don't want to have a talk page, don't use Wikipedia. -Flockmeal

Image Copyrights

Where can I find information about fair use for images on wikipedia ? Anthère

Info on images is here --Flockmeal 23:27, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Flockmeal. There is nothing on fair use though. I supposed I am good for heading to the ML... Sigh ! Anthère
There's some stuff on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and a bit on the Copyrights page but the mailing lists seem to have the most discussion about this. Angela 23:42, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Angela. I go and check.

Copying content from E2

I have found some nodes on Everything2 that I'd like to (partially) copy to a WP article. Is this permissible by copyright? (I didn't write the E2 content.) What attribution would I need to use? --bdesham 02:12, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know, but there are a few notes on this at the Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders. --Camembert
Short answer: no, you can't copy directly without permission from the original author. You can use the material on E2 as a reference to write a wikipedia article in your own words. --Robert Merkel 02:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Message block

I logged in to make some additions to the List of Jews today. I know I got on in my AOL browser instead of the "Internet Explorer" browser I usually use, but still . . . After I edited the page, I got this screen:


User is blocked

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Hephaestos. The reason given is this:
Michael

You may contact Hephaestos or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

Return to Main Page.




What does this mean?

Now it won't post no matter how many times I try entering a change into the browser and hitting "Save Page", and I've lost a larger number of Jews that were added into that article, including Josh Server, David Frum, David Horowitz, Leo Ornstein and Robert Ornstein, Lev Davidovich Landau, Jakob Dylan, Evan & Jaron, Abraham Maslow and William Safire (I hope I remembered them all.) For the rest of the day, I'm going to be posting only from Internet Explorer. Wiwaxia 02:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Wiwaxia, it means that somebody thinks you are an alter ego of a known troublemaker, "Michael", who has been banned from the Wikipedia due to his repeated and severe misbehaviour, or that you are posting from the same IP address as him (this can happen if your ISP uses a proxy server). Please take it up with the people mentioned if you have been caught inappropriately by a ban. --Robert Merkel 02:47, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I've unblocked the IP in question. - Hephaestos 02:56, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=1435197"