Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:23, 18 November 2007

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPA
• WP:VP/A

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Misplaced Pages:Ask a question or MediaWiki Help instead.

Self Identifying as "Expert"

I'm curious as to what the guidelines/policies are, if any, if a new editor pops in and says they are directly related to something. The prompting for this question is a new editor who just made some changes to the Meerkat Manor article, with their first change summary stating that they are "the creator and series editor of Meerkat Manor (and executive producer of Oxford Scientific Films)." Do we take such stuff at their word or just write them off as nuts? For now, I left them a note on their page that if they claims are true to make sure they adhere to the no conflict of interest and NPOV policies. It does make me wonder, though Collectonian 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That violates WP:COI, doesn't it? And anyway, how can you really be sure that the person is who they say they are? I would be very careful to make sure that the editor doesn't do anything dodgy. The user's edits should be verifiable as well, so if they're just adding uncited information, that's another issue. You may want to ask over at WP:COI/N; until then, I would say keep an eye out for NPOV edits, and make sure the article stays balanced. — HelloAnnyong 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Any such editor should be treated with utmost AGF, but possibly reminded that claiming expertise cannot be used to avoid the key policy of verifiability. We neither take anyone at their word, nor write anyone off as nuts (in the absence of evidence). -- zzuuzz 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's really best for someone who has (or claims to have) personal knowledge of a subject to contribute that at the talk/discussion page of the article (pointing out inaccuracies, suggesting additional text, etc. - all with appropriate sources, ideally). It's almost impossible for someone really close to something (e.g., the subject of an article) to have a truly neutral point of view; best to let other editors do the actual editing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback :) So far, she seems to be willing to agree to the limits set out for those with a potential conflict of interst and has mostly just left notes in the talk page about information she disagrees with. Collectonian 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's good that she's cooperating. About her identity: Why don't you just send e-mail to Caroline Hawkins or Animal Planet International to find out if she is really the person she says she is? If so then she'd be an asset for Misplaced Pages. — Sebastian 04:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I took your advice and emailed Southern Star Entertainment, who has confirmed that she is indeed who she says she is. So COI certainly applies, but anything else to be aware of? Collectonian 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You might also add {{Notable Wikipedian}} to the relevant article talk pages, making sure to explain to the user that this is standard practice so other users aren't caught off guard later on. Point out examples such as Roger Ebert and State Library of Victoria so she knows she's just not being picked on. If you want to make the email official, you should forward it to the OTRS permissions queue, who will then place a tag with an OTRS ticket number on the user's talk page. You may want to ask permission of the user to send her email on to the Foundation. Otherwise, just tell her than she's welcome to the wiki and that, while she will receive extra scrutiny as an account with a self-identified COI, we welcome her corrections and comments on talk pages in which she has a COI, and article edits on pages where she is an expert but has no COI. - BanyanTree 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oo, thanks! Didn't know about that. I added it to the Meerkat Manor article talk page and I left her a note to let her know (and to point her to those examples) :) Collectonian 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages for Schools

Anyone know where I can download Misplaced Pages for Schools? The torrent that I have only ever has half a dozen peers and no seeds. — PhilHibbs | talk 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You might check this page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also contact Bozmo with a postal address to be mailed a free copy on a physical DVD. --BozMo talk 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

William Birch

William Birch (1765-1834), enamel painter and engraver: practised after 1794 in Philadelphia; received Society of Arts medal, 1785.

He has prints out on the web, two examples are:

• http://www.philaprintshop.com/birch.html
• http://www.geocities.com/bobarnebeck/archwharf1.jpg

Are the images on the web {{PD-old}}? --evrik  22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't just the age of a painting, it's also the age of the photograph of the painting. That isn't a definitive answer (I'm not particularly experienced here), so you might want to take the question to Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At least for images in the US, if the photograph is a faithful reproduction of a public domain image, there is no copyright attached to the photograph. If the photo introduces some element of artistic invention, then the photo may be copyrightable. The status of photographic reproductions of public domain works in other jurisdictions may differ. As John indicated, Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions is the place to ask such questions. older ≠ wiser 15:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. If the point of the photograph or scan is simply to record the existing two-dimensional image, it is not considered a derivative work and the photographer doesn't get new rights. The images by Birch clearly appear to be PD-old. - BanyanTree 11:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you all. --evrik  17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Project template

We seem to have a problem with the templates for Project Freemasonry... When you place a template such as {{WikiProject Freemasonry|class=Stub}} or {{WikiProject Freemasonry|class=Start}} on the talk page, it hides the talk page's discussion text. For an example, see Talk:List of Freemasons. Would someone help me to fix this problem. Also posted to VP (Tech). Blueboar 14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it by putting in the closing table tags in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Freemasonry/ToDo. Tra (Talk) 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's always something small like that. Thanks. Blueboar 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding a Picture from a Book

I own a copy of a book that contains a picture of the author, who died around the early 1950's That I would like to add to a page. I know I can create a PDF of the picture, however I don't want to violate any copyright laws. How do I do this? I looked at the copyright page in wikipedia, but I don't know which category my picture would fall under. As a scientist, I would normally include the picture with a complete reference, and that would be kosher, but being new to Misplaced Pages, I'm uncertain on how to proceed. I have noticed that there are similar pictures, like the signed one of Ray Lankester. This one was found at an archive site, but mine is nowhere to be found. Please Help!! Ktrosvik 16:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When is the picture from? If the picture is from before 1923, then it's in the public domain and it doesn't matter. If it is from after 1923, then you need to ensure that it complies with our fair use guidelines. The gist of it is that non-free images have to be low resolution and only to illustrate their subject, such that they will not have a financial impact on the copyright holder.

Also, you'll want to upload your image as an image format, such as .gif, .png, or .jpg, not as a .pdf. - Revolving Bugbear 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't find an original copy of the picture itself, but I've found the picture in the book I own that was originally published in 1951, but my copy was published in 1985. I also found the same an obituary from 1951. the picture itself is from before that time, but I have no idea when. The book is out of print, and the obituary is free, so I would assume that using it wouldn't have any financial impact on the copyright holder of either the book or the obituary, but I'm uncertain about the picture itself.Ktrosvik 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacking proof that the image is in the public domain, you need to assume that it is copyrighted and requires a claim of fair use to be used on English Misplaced Pages. If you feel that the benefits of uploading the photo outweigh the hassle of using non-free content scan or photograph the image in an image format as Revolving Bugbear notes above. Choose the lowest resolution setting you have. Upload the image claiming {{non-free fair use in}} a particular article and specify why you think fair use is appropriate in this case. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline and Misplaced Pages:Use rationale examples if you're unsure how to write a rationale. - BanyanTree 12:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! I'll look into all that. Ktrosvik 13:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 Misplaced Pages for Schools

Make a lasting impact on the world! We guestimate the 2007 Misplaced Pages for Schools has helped several million children, including a couple of hundred thousand rural poor kids from http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/news14.html, distribution to schools in South Africa, India & Pakistan and a million or so online browsers at http:/schools-wikipedia.org plus tens of thousands of downloads and several thousand physical DVDs sent to networks. So who is lining up to start with the long process of the 2008 DVD? Please leave me a note if you feel you can contribute in a subject area: the main task is identifying lists of articles and historical versions which are free from vandalism. These versions last... the 2006 CD version still gets 5000 unique IP browsers a day. --BozMo talk 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I really hope you consider the content at Veropedia. In fact, one could argue that Veropedia (with which I have no association whatsoever) is doing exactly what you're looking for, and you should use (and add to) their articles rather than re-creating the wheel (so to speak). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin deletion of user page content

Question - can an admin delete the content of a user page, so that it cannot be retrieved? Case in point is User:Nicole 50dc. The content there was used earlier today to recreate a page (since speedied away) that was deleted as a result of this AfD yesterday. The user, an SPA and likely sock (see the IP edits in the AfD), is editing the page and will probably try the same thing again. Would nominating it as an MfD be the appropriate thing to do, or is there a quicker way? Thanks for any guidance. --Smalljim 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - following advice, I've put the page up for MfD. It's a bit quiet here, isn't it! Smalljim 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification - reading it again I guess the above wasn't very clear. It might sound like a naïve question about deleting a subpage - it isn't that: the content referred to is on a user page, not a subpage. I know that subpages can be deleted by admins, but a user page obviously shouldn't be deleted outright (unless it gets automatically recreated, I suppose ... ah yes, that's probably it!). Anyway this is really -now- a general question about whether content, as opposed to the page that hosts it, can be irretrievably removed by an admin. But maybe I'm having a senior moment and that's a dumb question too? --Smalljim 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Page content can be selectively deleted, see Misplaced Pages:Selective deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent, thanks. I'd got myself caught up on the idea of content, not versions. So it's possible, but longwinded. Just how it should be, I suppose. TVM --Smalljim 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can archival material be edited?

This thread moved to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) where it belongs. --Richard 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with Fred Thompson

We're at an impass on getting the edit-protected Fred Thompson page to report on the well-sourced media speculation that the 24 year age difference between Thompson and his second wife might have an impact on his Presidential aspirations. I feel that, although we are about equally divided on the talk page, Misplaced Pages policy favors the inclusion of notable material. This edit by User:Arzel is very revealing; s/he feels that the information should be kept off Misplaced Pages because the others want to include it for political reasons. Given that it seems unlikely that Thompson will be able to conceal his wife for the next year, could people with more familiarity with Misplaced Pages policy please help us resolve this conflict? Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, I've done a RfC, and asked the edit-protecting admin for a stop-gap solution, to no avail. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bots

Hello. I'm trying to get a bot working on other wiki-project but I need help from an experience botuser who's designed one with C# in Windows. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to post at Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard, or another discussion page relating to bots. I would first look through the currently operating bots and see if there is one that is already doing what you are thinking about, and approach the owner of that bot. Note that approval requests specify the language used, a Google search might be useful. There is certainly no obligation to help off-Misplaced Pages users, but many bot owners will share their code or offer help for specific problems as a matter of course. - BanyanTree 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Marking user warnings as minor

"User warning" here is defined to be any edit that consists solely of the addition of a pre-written message to a contributor's discussion page in response to intentionally unconstructive editing.

I've always marked user warnings as minor. It's the default behaviour for the most widely-used anti-vandalism tool. However, it would appear that some users consider this to be inappropriate. Can I get some sort of consensus on this? – Gurch 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, user warnings are minor edits. I suppose if I had to make an actual argument based on written guidelines, etc about it, I'd say that, since Help:Minor edit lists "Removing vandalism" as an appropriately minor change, informing the user who made such a minor change cannot be more important than actually removing the change. Or to put it another way: "If reverting a a user who writes 'My math teacher smells' in an article is trivial (aka minor), then telling the user to stop adding comments about his math teacher to articles is obviously just as trivial." It's trivial for the encyclopedia. It's trivial for the warning user, who may be dealing with dozens of such cases in a short period of time. It might be a big deal in the mind of the warnee, but vandals give up any right to be heard in a discussion on Misplaced Pages once they vandalize. I suppose that there may be occasions where a warning may be a big deal, due to prior history or context, but in such cases one shouldn't be using boilerplate anyway. If anyone is in a situation where they feel that placing a tag might not be minor, please don't: write an actual message explaining what is going on and why. - BanyanTree 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Help:Minor edit says, "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." People review and dispute vandalism warnings all the time. Removing blatant vandalism is given explicitly as something that can be marked as minor, but adding a warning to a user's talk page is not. Also, people may opt to hide minor edits when viewing recent changes or when looking in their watchlist, which means new warning marked as minor may not be seen by someone who is watching for one, which seems to me to be another good reason why someone shouldn't mark a warning as minor. Getting rid of vandalism is different from posting a warning, so just because one can get marked as minor doesn't mean that the other can be too.

Also, AzaToth himself, the creator of Twinkle, does not mark warmings as minor (an example). I just installed and tested Twinkle myself, and no, it does not mark vandalism warnings as minor by default (see my test here).

For the record, I am the "some users" Gurch is referring to. -- HiEv 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't Log In

On my home computer (I'm using a public one right now using my public computer sock. My main is User:Malinaccier), I can't log in. I type the password in and everything works fine, but the page won't fully load telling me that I've signed in. All the rest of the Misplaced Pages pages also freeze. I'm not sure that this is the right place to post this, but I need some help. Thanks! •Malinaccier Public• /C 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating a wikipedia

I am working with some folks to create a[REDACTED] style site to create a compendium of the histyr of a major metropolitan region. This will begin as a schools project, but we aim to open it to the general public after a year.

Having no experience in wiki potentially this vast, I was wondering if anyone out there does have such experience and might be avilable for consultation and advice.Harrycpayne 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that your best option is MediaWiki's own help and support. Adrian M. H. 11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Genre police

I would like to get some insight on what (or even if) avenues exist that can stop someone from editing mostly music related articles and changing the genres to what that user sees fit. The user Lizard Andrea seems to want to see this paticular field as 'genres according to Lizard Andrea' and any change from that, no matter the consensus, will be change back by me. If you check the contribs, you can see that this user hits the same articles the way (I assume it's a) she wants to even though they almost always subsequently get reverted/undone. I've put in for an RfC (Request for Comment) from the Wiki-community, but due to the relatively low profile of these edits, no-one has bothered to warn her about this besides me which is not enough to meet the threshold for this action. Is there any recourse for this because I have no desire to get into warring on articles? Lastly, I really don't consider these vandal edits and I thought they were in good faith but there seems to be an agenda involved as of late, personal or otherwise. τßōиЄ2001 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

She should be pointed to WP:OWN and dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation policy

I am wondering if there is a policy on when to translate pages (to English) that are mainly of interest to a specific country. For instance, articles on the various municipalities of Finland are present on the Finnish Misplaced Pages, but generally not on the English Misplaced Pages.

Since English could be considered the closest thing to a "world language" we got I think it makes sense to translate these "local" pages to English, as many more readers will be able to understand the content. It is frustrating to seek knowledge on a local topic that turns out to be described only in a language you don't understand.

But is there a policy on when to do these translations? If there is I haven't found it. Perhaps there is a risk of cluttering the English Misplaced Pages with articles that are too local in nature? Relrel 10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Since consensus/precedent supports, rightly or wrongly, articles for any and all places, towns, regions and so on, I can see no major issue with what you propose. As long as it meets the usual core policies (WP:V, etc.) Adrian M. H. 11:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Editors are encouraged to add non-English-language countries' small towns and municipalities. Corvus cornix 19:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And the same goes, of course, for translating articles from the Suomi Misplaced Pages into the Esperanto Misplaced Pages, whose advocates argue that Esperanto, by design and practice, is the true international language. Better to spread the knowledge of Finland to all the world, just as we each wish to share the knowledge of our beloved homelands. --Orange Mike 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Database server lag over 45 minutes

I can view and edit articles but when I ask for my watchlist, I get this message:

Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 2694 seconds might not be shown in this list.

Anybody know what's going on and whether anybody is working on this? Where is the right place to notify the appropriate people about this? --Richard 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal answer is that I just wait it out. You're never alone when this happens - it means the database and/or server are mucked up a bit and they're well aware when that happens. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, similar discussion here. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

posting an article.

My name is shahebaz and uid shahebaz1985. I had a project in manufacturing planning and control on the topic capacity planning requirement. It was a successfull project. I want to post this with different references and links which have been used to create it. I dont have any idea about the license as this is the first time i had a thought of posting the article because i could'nt find it on wikipedia. I have collected all the required information from different books and links. I have one more query. Is it possible to get it checked by some professional that is the article which i'm suppose to post is correct or not. Is there any changes have to be made? To clear my confusion and to help me out you people can contact me on my email id: <e-mail deleted for privacy concerns> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahebaz1985 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that your article constitutes original research. While Wikipedians encourage the spread of learning in all venues, Misplaced Pages is explicitly not a venue for the publication of original research. There are other places which might be open to such information; but we are compiling already-published information here. --Orange Mike 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As Orange Mike said, your paper may constitute original research. However, if you can present the topic as a notable subject, using collection of facts taken from reliable sources, without any synthesis of sources to advance a new claim, then your research can probably used to create a valid Misplaced Pages article. If you want the facts checked when you complete it you can use the {{expert-subject}} tag to attract editors who may be able to help. -- HiEv 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with Article

I recently removed the trivia section from the Boy Meets Boy (TV series) article. It was all unsourced and as it referred to living people, the best course seemed to be to remove it, as the first step in an attempt to improve the article for the Television Project. User:Otto4711 immediately reverted the removal saying he disagreed with the assessment. I reverted stating "discuss on talk page, this trivia also violates WP:Living", which I felt it did by making statements about living people that were unsourced and could be seen as controversial. Otto4711 reverted again, saying to leave it alone. Then he goes to the talk page and simply posts "let's discuss."

While trying to type up a message on the talk page to explain the removal and the reasons behind it, I reverted his revert (at this point, its a minor edit war), noting that violations of living must be removed immediately. He again reverted, claiming they items were sourced, then went back and added in some bad sources for the trivia claims (one is from IMDB, while the other two only partially support the items in question). Meanwhile, he is being increasingly incivil both on my talk page (and and in the article talk page, refusing to listen to reason and discuss ways of rectifying things. I attempted to explain the need for reliable, neutral sources for statements about living people and ever offered ways the two fairly useful bits of trivia could be incorporated into the article.

He finally seemed to understand and left the trivia off, so I went on with improving the article, giving it a lot of clean up and structure fixes. Now, he's put the trivia back again claiming it is "properly" sourced. I'm not bothering to revert again. I removed the unsupported statement and the IMDB reference, which he again reverted, sticking in another hastily found (or made up) source.

As a side note, a previous editor had tagged the trivia section , which Otto4711 also removed, saying three items were reasonable (and not addressing what the tag actually says). He also seems to remove or revert any edit he disagrees with, and, I feel like he is displaying WP:Ownership issues over the article.

I know I probably should have given up reverting earlier when it became obvious that he wasn't going to really attempt to discuss anything, but other than that, I attempted to remain civil and tried to see his side of things, but he never gave any reason for keeping the trivia beyond his just wanting to. I've given up any attempt to dialog with him and will not bother continuing to work to improve the article until the issue is resolved, so any feedback and/or assistance appreciated. Collectonian (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Statements (trivia or otherwise) only violate WP:BLP/WP:Living when those statements are negative. There might be verifiability issues, but this particular policy doesn't apply. A better course of action would be to look for sources and incorporate trivia into the main article text. - Mgm| 13:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Ah, okay. Thanks, that helps clarify the BLP for me. :-) I did want to note, though, that another editor also came and tagged the trivia section, but once again Otto has removed it. At the minimum, I think the section should be tagged so other editors might be encouraged to incorporate the items into the article itself. Collectonian (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic (Mgm) is wrong about WP:BLP only counting when the statements are negative. The policy says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles,(2) talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis in original) The only difference between negative statements and non-negative statements in WP:BLP is that the three-revert rule does not apply to repeated reverts where the removed information is derogatory. That being said, any unsourced material about living persons should be removed until someone can cite a source for it. Currently it looks like all material in the trivia section is sourced.

Furthermore, you are right that the {{trivia}} tag should not have been removed. It is a trivia section, and as long as it exists it should be tagged as such, regardless of the number of items in it. However, while trivia sections are discouraged, they are not outlawed. Anything deleted from the article should probably be done for notability or other reasons, not simply because it's in a trivia section. -- HiEv 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting code issue

Hey Guys! I'm trying to fix {{Infobox Artist Discography}} in the graphical sense, but can't seem to figure out how. What I'm trying to do is make sure the rows all appear as the same heigh, but every so often, the lines get blown out in size (see some of the articles that links there to see what I'm talking about). Anybody know how this can be fixed, retaining the knockout function (i.e. the way that it doesn't show unnecessary lines). (ps: I put this note up yesterday at WT:ALBUM, but as per usual, they're taking their sweet time responding). --lincalinca 13:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template problem

{{DisambigProject}} is putting pages like Talk:Acacius (a lot of pages like that) into Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. That's wrong.

There were two edits to the template on November 16th, the first (I think) to fix this problem and the second (I think) primarily for aesthetic reasons. Would someone more experienced take a look and see what needs to be done? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The tags are OK. Cache issue? Adrian M. H. 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Cleanup" and "Advert" tags?

What's the policy about who can or when to remove "Cleanup" and "Advert" tags? Two months ago I wrote the article Anti-stuttering devices. I had it peer-reviewed, a variety of changes were made, and no one has made any changes in over a month. Can we get rid of the tags now?--TDKehoe (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages help forums