User talk:Shanes/2006-Sep-1 to 2006-Dec-31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Click here to leave Shanes a new message.



Nov-04 to Jun-05
Jul-05 to Dec-05
Jan-06 to Mar-06
Apr-06 to Aug-06
Sep-06 to Dec-06

This is an archived version of the Shanes Talk Page. Use the box above to leave a new message. Don't edit this page, please.

  • Sometimes I respond on your talk page, sometimes here.

Contents

[edit] Request banning of sock puppets

I request that you ban the sock puppets CopOnTheBeat, Freezer Man or CRANdieter, who you can see from their edit histories [1], [2], [3] were created for the purpose of defaming my character and attacking me through vandalizing edits to the Ben Best article and through personal attacks on Talk:Ben_Best. You gave fair wanting to them at Talk:Ben_Best#Please_stop_the_harassment and I have given the same warning at Talk:Ben_Best#Some_.22hands_off.22_policy.21.21.21 where I reminded the sock puppets about Wikipedia's policy on personal attack (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Note Freezer Man's most recent accusation that I am a childish lier at the bottom of that section. I realize that banning these sock puppets will only be of symbolic value, because more sock puppets are easily created in their place to continue the campaign of personal attack, but symbolic value is better than no value. I would add the sock puppet Cecelia Hensley, who is the most subtly constructed in the sock puppet family, but you might not be convinced of my evidence that this is the same person, and the attack by that sock puppet came before your and my warning: Talk:Ben_Best#Distressing_behaviour, although the sock puppet has since been hacking away at the Ben Best entry claiming to be making improvements. --Ben Best 02:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:Benbest. Shanes 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Responded on User talk:Benbest --Ben Best 09:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of sock puppetry on the Ben Best page

As someone who has edited the Ben Best page recently, you may have been aware of the allegations of sock puppetry. As this has continued for six weeks now, I have started the appropriate Wikipedia handling process. If you wish to make a contribution, please go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CRANdieter and add your views to the Comments section. Nunquam Dormio 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong?

Nothing much with what's there now. Some well meaning individual has replaced the information with correct material. This is a little bit of a bummer considering I still had another couple of classes I wished to confront with my incorrect version, but I guess it also highlights the UP side of Wikipedia! :)

Check out the first version, though.

All the best,

Johno Hughes (p.s. I'm 32, not 89! :)Johno 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SelfInstall 175x175.gif

Hi Shanes,

I don't understand what the problem is with Image:SelfInstall 175x175.gif I shot the image himself but it continues to be marked for deletion by others. Banasko 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Seigenthaler, Sr. vandalism

Good eyes! I missed seeing it the first time. Kaldari 22:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a post about it on WP:ANI. We need to be on the watch for this. Shanes 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many Evil Tags not only on wikipedia

Not realy 100% related about evil tabgs but here is a good read about signpost clutering roads - 335 road signs in eight-mile stretch. Basicly, I thought of evil tags when I read it and if wikipedia continues on the current trend, then this would be the same state. EVIL tags MUST be removed. --Supercoop 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the trend with ever more articles being cluttered up with this tags should worry us. Hopefully the trend might also make it easyer for people to see the problem these tags impose in being obtrusive and distracting. Shanes 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wiki edit Katrina

Hi Shanes, I saw you reverted an edit on the Katrina page, just so you know [ACORN] is based here in New Orleans and is HUGE in distributing and helping people effected by the hurricane.Please take a look at the website above to learn about how active and important we are here in New Orleans for Katrina victims. We are actually the only group thus far who has saved homes and have a free gutting and housing program and have provided ALOT of the hurricane relief here to locals. We continue to do this every day. We even won the planning for the Holy cross and ninth ward neighborhoods. We actively have saved thousands of homes from repossesion and demolition by the city and are continuing to address the imporatnt issues here for evacuees and those who have returned. We are listed on Network For good as one of the main resources for Katrina relief and really DO belong in this section, Perhaps we have yet to raise as much money as some of the organizations cited, but we have definately done just as much work as many of them. We are on the ground here every day, and have been for over a year now. The organization itself is over 32 years old, and we will continue to unite and provide Katrina Relief to those in need.

It's really important that people know what we are doing here, because in order to save these homes owners have to gut them and secure them, a very expensive and time consuming process, IF this is not done then thousands upon thousands of people will never have a home to return to as the city will deem it a public nuisance and demolish or take ownership from the owners. There is SO much work yet to be done, and many of the organizations cited are no longer providing services for people here in New Orleans effected by the storm.

Please reconsider your edit and allow ACORN to spread the word about our Hurricane Relief program. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinWhelan (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure which edit/revert of mine you are refering to. Looking at my edits to the Katrina page I can't see that I have ever reverted any of your edits. Shanes 08:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] constant editing

The same user continues to delete my edits which are I think are legit. Is there anything I can do about that or is that just the reality of a wiki? Banasko 15:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Try asking him why he is deleting your edits. Shanes 11:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Illiad & Odyssey Spoiler Warnings

Hi there. I have written a query about your removal of the spoiler warning for The Illiad on the talk page. I don't understand at all why you dismiss this as "sillyness". I invite you to make your case on that article's talk page. Similarly, I have written a query about your removal of the spoiler warning for The Odyssey on that article's talk page. Thanks, Bwithh 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:Iliad. Shanes 10:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment‎

Hi Shanes, I am going to revert your edit on the 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment article because Camerone is one of there battle honours. The reason for this is that Camerone is a battle honour for all regiments in the French Foreign Legion, no matter when they were created, all regiments have it on there standard, se this website: [4]. Carl Logan 19:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok! I didn't know that. It just looked strange to me that they had received an honour for a war almost 100 years before the regiment were formed, so I thought it was a mistake or that it was meant to be in another regiment article or something. Sorry about that. Shanes 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem, French regimental history is very confusing and complex, it is also nice to know that someone read the article (I have largely written it). Carl Logan 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me butting in, I've added a brief comment to the battle honours section to try and explain it to others - what do you think? David Underdown 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks clarifying to me, but I'm not very well informed about these things. Shanes 10:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection of Automobile and George Washington

Could you please re-semiprotect Automobile - the article has already been vandalised TWICE in the few hours since you unprotected it. None of the reasons for which it was originally semi-protected have changed - so there is really no grounds for unprotecting it. Look back at the history - we almost NEVER get useful edits from anonymous users - it's not like this is some highly sensitive political topic where people need to be anonymous to work effectively - and the quantity of vandalism this article is a SIGNIFICANT load on the editors and before we had semiprotection the article appeared in vandalised form for more hours each day than it appeared pristine. Since it's an important article, this is no small matter. Thanks! SteveBaker 13:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and a popular article ('car' redirects there) like that is bound to be vandalised now and and then. But I'd prefere to keep it open a little while longer for now. Being vandalised 3 times in 12 hours is not really what I'd call a serious level of vandalism, and if we were to sprotect all articles receiving that amount, we'd have tens of thousand of sprotected articles on wikipedia. The reasons for wanting to keep popular articles open as much as possible are:
  1. Lot's of people see them and us being "The encyclopedia that everyone can edit", we should be wary of giving people the impression that it really isn't so by having all the popular articles protected.
  2. Some times people without an account do actually contribute usefull stuff, and even the more nonsencical edits are often just a new editor's baby steps that many people have to make before being comfortable here.
  3. People tend to smear that hiddeous sprotect-box on top of articles that are sprotected, ruining the whole look and focus of the article. The article look much better without that sprotect box on top, don't you think?
But I realize that this article will be sprotected again soon, and I might do it myself in the very near future. Reading the talk page it looks like the most active editors of the article prefer it being sprotected, and I have respect for that. But let's try and keep it open a little bit longer, just for now. Ok? Shanes 15:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

George Washington has also been vandalised four times by anonymous users since you unprotected it this morning. Richard75 16:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So why does the committee that decides on protection ever sprotect things for ongoing vandalism? The fact is that I proposed to that group that this article be semi-protected on the grounds of ongoing vandalism - that was accepted. What has changed between then and now? Why did you simply do this on your own recognisance without consulting with the editors or filing a proper request for unprotection? Not one of the regular editors agrees with you - not one. What is the point of a short term protection against ongoing vandalism? An ongoing problem needs an ongoing solution. With this kind of article, the number of vandals by far exceeds the number of vandalism patrollers. This means that my 7 year old son looks up 'Automobile' for a school project and has about an 50% chance of finding it full of obscenities. That's the kind of thing that'll get him banned from using it in school and at home. How did that serve the public - does an article with a 50/50 chance of being unreadable make a better article than one that a tiny fraction of people cannot contribute to? Why is this a better encyclopedia when articles like this are full of unspeakable nastiness most of the time - with editors spending a LARGE fraction of their time fixing it rather than writing and researching new material?
I'd agree with you (perhaps) if anonymous editors were making a significant difference to Automobile - but they aren't. I've just analysed the last 500 entries in the history list (excluding the period when it was semi-protected). Over the last 500 changes, 200 were by anonymous users. How many of those were productive edits? Guess! The answer is eight. So over 3 MONTHS only eight anonymous users felt moved to edit the article. Of those eight, only two were of any significance whatever to the article - and both of those changes have been overtaken by events and rewritten subsequently. I'd bet some of those people were regular editors who simply forgot to log in - so the number of people who really needed this ability is probably less even than eight. So if the article had been semiprotected 500 edits ago, it would have quite literally ZERO negative impact on the current state of the article...ZERO. Of the remaining 300 changes, we may assume that 192 of those were vandalism reversions. So on nearly 200 occasions one of our editors checked their watchlists - maybe with the intention to do some useful work - and instead had to clear crap out of the article *AGAIN*. So we have: 39% of edits were anonymous vandals, 39% were reversions, 1.6% were anonymous contributions, 19.4% were known user contributions. Now - ask yourself - which is the more important community to protect, the 1.6% who we'd be shutting out (although they just have to create accounts in order to do their work) - or all of those productive contributors who are spending 2/3rds of their edits fixing vandalism? Truly - there is a case here for permenant semi-protection.
Look at the communities here: The readership - who are in the VAST majority on an article like this one. They gain almost nothing from anonymous editors (a few percent of the changes at most) and lose an enormous amount through anonymous vandals. The legitimate anonymous editors - they lose their ability to be anonymous...but this isn't a case where anonymity is important. Sure, if I were writing a piece about anti-terrorism in America - or religion or something sensitive, I might want to edit anonymously - but in an article about CARS!! Really - if they care, they can get an account - they lose almost nothing if the article is semi-protected - they are also by far the smallest community on Automobiles and hence should have the smallest say. Then there is the legitimate editors with accounts. We are the ones expected to fix vandalism - yet there are so few of us that we can't keep the article clean for more than maybe half of the time. We stand to gain enormously from semi-protection. In the end, the only people who really lose out are the vandals. So - PLEASE re-semiprotect our work, thanks! SteveBaker 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Lot's of people see them and us being "The encyclopedia that everyone can edit", we should be wary of giving people the impression that it really isn't so by having all the popular articles protected.
See above. That was only eight people in three months.
2. Some times people without an account do actually contribute usefull stuff, and even the more nonsencical edits are often just a new editor's baby steps that many people have to make before being comfortable here.
That's not generally held up by the content of these edits. They almost always contain obscene content...that's not what a rational person types when trying out something like this.
3. People tend to smear that hiddeous sprotect-box on top of articles that are sprotected, ruining the whole look and focus of the article. The article look much better without that sprotect box on top, don't you think?
So let's get rid of the box...but not the ability to protect. That's a separate discussion - we should have the edit box pop up a dialog that offers you the ability to sign in or create a new account and explains why that is. But even without such a change, which looks worse - that box or three paragraphs worth of obscene language fifty percent of the time?

SteveBaker 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no committee deciding on whether a page should be protected or not. As with most things on Wikipedia it is up to whoever sees a need or request and thinks complying with it will be to the best for Wikipedia. If you file a page protection request on WP:RFPP it may or may not end up being protected. But even if a page is protected one day, it is not a protection for life. The main page and a very limited few others are permanently protected, but expanding the number of permanently protected pages to pages like Automobile is beyond what any administrator singlehandedly can decide. You're arguing along lines that apply to many thousand pages on wikipedia. Should we keep every article receiving 3 or more cases of vandalism a day protected? Maybe. Actually, many people believe we should only be editable to registered users. And maybe we should. But then we're ditching alot of the open editing philosophy that Wikipedia is, or at least was, founded on.
Having said all this, I sense your concern and frustration over this to be so serious that I'll protect the page now anyway. Having a fine contributer like you so upset over an issue about an article that you truly care this much about is not worth it IMO. But don't see this as a permanent protection. And please don't use my compliment with your request now as an argument against whoever later unprotects it to get it protected again. Now, smile, be happy, and get back to work ;-). Shanes 21:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - thanks! But you've got to reprotect Computer too - same arguments apply! Just look at the edit histories - the moment you unprotect them, there is a veritable avalanche of vandalism. The problem of comparison of one page's needs versus another is that some pages (like Automobile and Computer are really obvious vandalism targets - but they don't have a whole lot of editors. So vandalism doesn't always get cleared up very quickly and the same few people get to spend all of their days patrolling them - which is just really unfair on a few good folks. SteveBaker 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I know a great deal about recent changes patrolling and I can asure you that there aren't just a few people monetoring changes on Wikipedia. Vandalism happens on Wikipedia, it happens alot. On some pages more than others. That's what we get for having an openly editable website. But we get a whole lot of good out of it too, so we need to find a ballance. There are thousands of articles receiving the same amount of vandalism as Computer and Automobile, and permanently sprotecting them all will mean a serious tightening of the "everyone can edit" policy. We might be heading that way in some sense, the Germans are set to start an interesting experiment with stable versions which I hope will be successfull and adapted here. But until then I believe we should follow the protection policy and let sprotection be the exeption and not the rule for every article receiving a handfull of bad edits a day. Shanes 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of articles out of 1.4 million is not a high proportion. For whatever reason some articles seem to attract a lot of vandals while most articles do not. So protecting a small fraction of Wikipedia is not really undermining the whole "anyone can edit" principle very much. Richard75 16:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unprotection of Mathematics

Hi, vandals are already hitting Mathematics since it was unprotected. --Jtir 18:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check the block log --Jtir 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA article

Hello.

Myself and User:Cswrye are currently discussing rating an article within Wikiproject: Psychology - specifically NPA personality theory. Would it be possible for you to provide additional insight, as and when it is convenient? Thank you! :)-- D-Katana 13:58, 04 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA

My apologies - the edit conflict was entirely inadvertant: I did not get an edit warning. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Shanes 10:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help with reversion of Kim Jong-il and etc. I've only joined up today, and I'm primarily reverting vandalism and other nonsense. It's all a bit much so far, being so new at it. If I knew how, I'd nominate that article for protection. Hopefully I'm contributing usefully so far... I've made two requests for administrator intervention which were both acted upon, and I've caught a lot of vandalism :) Pursey 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, and well done. I agree, the page is being hit rather hard at the moment. I've semiprotected it now. Shanes 16:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again - I'm in the process of reading how to report this properly... but: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is still being frequently vandalised after its recent unprotection. Pursey 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for protections can be made on WP:RFP. Regarding the flag on Iwo Jima article, it is todays featured article, and they always attract lots of vandalism. But we usually try to keep them as openly editable as possible. Reasons for that are listed here. Shanes 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers - Sorry again :) 'Learnding is fun!' ;) Pursey 16:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] strange edit under article "Me"

I typed in "Me" in the search for wikipedia. and the results seem to be very strange. They are also promoting a site that I felt I shouldn't go to. I saw you had checked this page before and that you are a recent changes patroller and would like to alert you on this. Thank You

Thanks for telling me. I see the vandalism has been fixed now. It was the redirect Me to ME that someone had hampered with. That someone has been warned and will hopefully not do it again. Shanes 00:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SORRY

It just happens someone hacked into my account. —comment added by Hempfel(t/c)

[edit] RfB With A Smile :)

      

[edit] My United blog......

Hi Shane,

I recently posted a link to my United blog http://a-kick-in-the-grass.blogspot.com this was after seeing another blog on the same page, so I thought it was acceptable to post a link to another personal blog. In my opinion mine is the best on the net, because it covers United well and it contains elements of humour.

My link kept on disappearing only to be replaced by the other United blog. I assumed it was the author removing my link.

I didn't realise I was breaking any rules. So for that I apologise.

However, I would like the situation to be clarified about blogs. Personally I think Wiki should have a separate links section for blogs.

Once again apologies for any inconvenience.

James. —comment added by 82.17.191.242(t/c)

Replyed on the IP talk. Shanes 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your explanation...

Ok, I don't have a problem with this as long as the other blog isn't allowed on Wiki, if it is, then I will be unhappy because frankly it's not as good as mine. Whoever is putting that blog together is just ripping off news/match reports from other sites. My blog contains analysis and opinion and it's all totally original.

[edit] one other thing..

There is no difference between a personalised blog and a fanazine, they are both written by fans. However, as with fanzines, some are better than others. Also, as it happens, at this moment in time, there isn't loads of United blogs out there, but there will be in time.

IF you like I'll offer my services to approve them for you. I wouldn't allow hundreds of personalised blogs, maybe a top ten.

IF the powers that be want Wiki to grow, then this is an area that you should sersiously consider.

Have you heard of Patrick Barclay who writes for the Sunday Telegraph? He's a well respected journalist. He reads my blog and tells me it's a good read.

[edit] CfD

Check this out: [5] bunix 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was actually reading that excact CFD when you messaged me. Strange. Shanes 23:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindenburg

I won't revert again, but as it stands the article is unsourced because there's no way to connect the assertions in the text with the sources listed below. In order to add these citations, someone (probably me), is going to have to sit down with the latest stuff on Hindenburg (we'll see if anything useful has come out of the Hindenburg Project yet) and re-research the article. That's why I say it's unsourced. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem IMO is that if we set a standard that articles like this (with this many references listed and used) should have that tag, then the majority of Wikipedia articles should have it. Degrading both the articles and the tag. I much prefere the use of the fact-tag on statements that need citing. There were some discussions when the tag was introduced, and consensus back then was actually to not have it in article space at all, but on talk-pages where IMO editor centric tags like this should be kept. Though this has mostly been ignored in practice. But the guideline on its use today does say that if there's a reference section, the template should not be used. On the other hand, if you feel that the article contains errors, it should clearly be tagged as such using one of the tags meant for that sort of flagging. Shanes 11:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Clone 2

Requesting unblock (just an FYI) :) Glen 02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Grrr... and Clone 1, with the same unblock message. Glen 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He's of course just trolling. Just decline unblocks when you see them. Shanes 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tack för hjälpen

Tack för hjälpen--Woogie10w 01:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 ;-). Your Swedish is very good. Shanes 01:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful, but I did find your comments very encouraging. Please rest assured that I am still a strong supporter of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. And thanks again! :) --Elonka 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The US had 48 states in 1939-45

Lets hope the people from Texas don't demand their own line--Woogie10w 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alf Sommerfelt

Hi, I saw your name at Wikipedia:Translators available#Norwegian-to-English and was wondering if you would be willing to translate nn:Alf Sommerfelt into English. (It's not long!) There's a red link to Alf Sommerfelt at Irish phonology that I would love to be able to turn blue. Thanks! —Angr 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Shanes 16:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Super, thanks! —Angr 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of unreferenced template

Why are you removing {{Unreferenced|article}} from state articles? Wyoming has ONE reference, of elevation only and you don't think the tag applies? We need to make sure that people visiting understand that the article isn't referenced and should be taken with a grain of salt. If you want the top of the article template removed please add it to each un referenced section instead then. Or if you don't like that find an "underreferenced" tag. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me about it. The tag is meant for completely unreferenced articles and articles without any external links. The state articles I removed it from have both. This was discussed when the template was introduced, when it survived TFD, and also since. See here and further down. We can always argue that articles should be better referenced, but this applies to at least a million wikipedia articles. We don't want a million wikipedia articles to start with that degrading tag. Instead I suggest you flagg statements needing citations or a reference with the much more to-the-point and helpfull {{fact}} tag. It makes it much easyer for editors to find what in particular needs a reference or citation, and it also flaggs to the reader in a much better way exactly which statements she should take with a grain of salt. Placing a note on the talk page about more references is needed would also be a good idea. But, of course, if an article contains disputed, or what you suspect is plainly wrong information, the article should clearly be tagged as such using one of the many templates meant for that kind of flagging, along with a note about it on the talk page. I personaly find we are now drowning in "this article stinks somehow" templates and that this excessive tagging gives readers the impression that the articles are in much worse shape than they really are. Shanes 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I agree that some articles could better use the fact tag. The problem isn't that these articles need to be better referenced, it's that one sentence out of hundreds is referenced, to me thats as good as being completely un-referenced. If I used the fact tag 95% of the sentences would have it, which would look much much worse than a header at the top. Also when you removed the header you did nothing to replace it, so there was a loss of information. School kids rely on these state articles, they need to be made aware that the facts may not be true. Re: "gives readers the impression that the articles are in much worse shape than they really are.", read the state articles, they really are in terrible shape. Also as one who has had all of the state articles on his watchlist for quite a while I can attest that there is constant semi-vandalism going on with them where people are slipping in random facts because nothing has a reference. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think 95% of the sentences in an article should have references to them. That would clutter the article with footnotes and make it hard to read. Most facts are really rather well known stuff and not very controversial or surprising. To take the Wyoming article you mentioned, the whole lead looks fine as it is. That it's a state in the US doesn't need a citation, what its bordering states are is also rather obvious, and so is the state having mountain ranges and rangelands. The only fact I'd say needs a source is it being the least populous state, and that fact is sourced with a link to census.gov. Further down there are further facts being backed up with either external links or footnotes (history, demographics and elevation points). Of course it could and should be better, but it's far from the worst article I've seen in this regard, it's not unsourced (as the tag says it is) and, as I was saying, the vast majority of wikipedia articles are in much worse shape and should then also be tagged if this one is. In the end tagging every article with less than a few citations would make Wikipedia look rather poor, but also make people care less about the tag and not pick up on it on the pages that really are full of unsourced speculations and desperately in need of sources and references.
Having said this, if you are one of the people caring about this article and feel very deeply that it's in such a bad shape that starting it with that box is needed to alert every reader about it, then just put it back in. I won't revert or anything. I hate people just dropping by in articles they've never worked on and forcing their way with it, and maybe that's what I'm guilty of here. But I myself feel we are starting to drown in these tags and that they are way overused. But that's just me. Feel free to disagree and edit the article accordingly. Shanes 07:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

User:Sd31415/ThumbYou are the biggest editor of the article George W. Bush! s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no, I didn't know that. I actually feel rather honoured about it, as it means I've been rather good at vandalism-reverting it. Because that's what 99% of those edits are. I haven't written the article or contributed to the article content in any large way or anything. That stat at the bottom was also rather interesting in illustrating how vandalism on that once most vandalised article on Wikipedia increased up to the point when it was semiprotected when edit counts dropped sharply. Makes me wonder if all those vandals finding the door locked just went on to vandalise some other article instead. Maybe they turned to the article on his father or the one on the vice president, both of which I see I'm also the nr 1 "editor" of. ;-). Anyway, thanks for the stat link! Shanes 07:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Shane's question

Contrary to popular belief, Christianity goes back to the apostles and Catholism is a religion formed away from the actual born again beliefs of these apostles. Luther just happens to have come along way after the original Christians. The Catholic religion is a religion of rituals, and man made beliefs. To say that the Christians brought about the Crusades is a falsehood, because the Catholics are the ones who performed these atrocities, not the true followers of Jesus Christ who went out into the world proclaiming the gospel. Christians are not perfect, but I don't know of any such atrocities performed by true Christians.

4.167.92.49 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not compentent, and therefore not willing, to argue more about this. To me it looks strange to use the term catholic about a time when I believe Roman Catholic was all that really was. But I might be wrong. But I'll encourage you to make your case on Talk:First Crusade so that more editors of that article can weigh in. Anyway, thanks for explaining your edit to me. Shanes 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dog in the Manger

"A typical example is the child who discards a toy - until a sibling tries to play with it. Then the first child becomes possessive about something they no longer wanted." - Is this interpretation covered by the original Aesop text on Wikisource? Kncyu38 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you find a statement you believe should be sourced or cited, I'd prefere it if you flag that specific statements using the {{fact}} tag instead of stamping the whole article as inferior with that big box on top. Flagging specific statements is also much more helpfull to both the readers and the editors. Regarding this particular statement, I find it a rather noncontroversial and obvious example of an interpretation of the fable. But I guess it's something that could be cited or changed with another example if someone insists on it. Shanes 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with this interpretation by itself, but words like "noncontroversial" and "obvious" (or "commonsense" and "self-evident") make me wonder where to draw the line. Personally, I believe only tautologies are obviously true statements. But this statement is non-tautological in that it decides upon right and wrong interpretation, and without a proper reference, it is therefore OR, no matter how obvious it may seem to you or me or anybody. Like Jimbo [6], I believe that the {{fact}} tag is overused and I actually prefer "stamping the whole article as inferior", precisely because without proper sources, it is inferior and it is upon users interested in the maintenance of that article to improve it by providing those sources. Kncyu38 13:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's a simple answer to where to draw the line. It's probably a subjective thing. But one gets a long way with common sense. But what Jimbo is refering to is whether or not we should let unsourced, questionable, statements remain in the article with the fact tag or wether we instead should just nuke the whole statement. I wouldn't object if you were simply removing that one statement you find questionable, if you indeed do find it questionable. Jimbo is definitely not advocating using the unsourced tag as a replacement for the fact tag. He is urging people to be bolder in simply removing statements instead of leaving them in with some tag. But here, too, common sense must be applied in where to draw the line between what to delete and what to keep in. Myself I would use, and do use, the fact tag if I see something that could do with a cite, but that I'd say is probably true and at least not really hurting anybody if it should turn out to be more doubtfull, but delete the statement otherwise and then explain the reason on the talk page or in the edit summary. Shanes 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, makes sense. I don't find that statement questionable. -> I just wish there'd be a reference for it. -> I tag it with {{fact}} and hope that someone will come up with a source for this or an equivalent statement. Agreed. I just prefer the {{unreferenced}} tag because tagging the whole article is a far more effective way to call on editors to provide references. (Of course, it is appropriate only if, like in this case, there is no reference at all to secondary literature.) After all, the {{fact}} tag is far more likely to be ignored, because it is far less prominent, and that's why Wikipedia is crawling with them. Is there an article/section tag for "partial lack of references"? That would be a nice compromise. Kncyu38 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of making even more tags. But it's all about compromising between readers and editors. Wikipedia is both a project to build an encyclopedia but also an already rather decent one with millions of readers. We want every article to improve as much as possible for the next year or ten years or how long it takes, but also for the millions of people reading Wikipedia today to present for them articles in an as good shape as possible right now without distractions. These two tasks sometimes conflict somewhat. When we put a big colored "Fix Me!" box on top of an article (that be a wikify-tag, unsourced tag, cleanup tag, and what not), that tag is in it self making the article worse, distracting the readers and breaking the style manual on several points. There used to be a time when you could expect that a fix-me tag would be short-lived because people were browsing the maintainance categories and fixing articles at about the same rate as someone else added tags. But now the backlogs in so many of the lists in Category:Wikipedia maintenance are so beyond immense that flagging an article is much less likely to make editors notice it and fix it any time soon. We have thousands of articles where the tags have stayed for over a year now. There simply seems to be more people interested in throwing "fix this" tags around than actually fixing them. Maybe because it's easier. Whatever reason, I think we have too many articles now tagged as inferior, making us look needlessly worse than we really are. What is inferior is relative, and if we end up having, say, a million articles tagged we're not better off and wikipedia will look like it's in a rather poor shape. There's no problem in finding a million articles that we could put some kind of tag on now. Almost every article that isn't Featured have flaws that someone has now made a tag for. But I hope nobody wants us to go down that million tags-path.

So, in my opinion, we should be much more selective in when to put fix-me tags on top of articles. If we concentrate on flagging and tagging the articles that really need improvements, we increase the likelihood of these worst cases being improved sooner. For everything else there's the talk page. I really wish we could return to communicating complaints about an article on the talk page. That's what talk pages were meant for. And then let the articles be about the article-subject, not about Wikipedia, and let readers see an as tag-free article as possible. Save for tags about neutrality and factuality, of course. Those tags are important for the reader to understand bias etc. But this is just my opinion. End of rant. Shanes 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please believe me that I fully appreciate your concerns. I just happen to have a slightly different attitude: WP does not rely on academic/professional expertise for most of its articles, and therefore we must be even more rigid in providing sources. I.e. one unsourced statement is one too many. But I'll be more careful in how and what I tag, alright? Kncyu38 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
With your reasonable "rant" in mind, I ran across this article. In my opinion, the article was purposefully tagged articles so as to discredit its content. I would like to hear your opinion on this one. Kncyu38 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Circumcision is a very controversial topic and I'm not surprised to see it start off with the disputed tag. The article does contain some weasel-sentences, but as most of them are being backed up with references, I think they simply could and should be rewritten to read less weasly, e.g. cut down on the many "Some believe" etc and be more specific in who believe/say/think etc based on the refs given. Regarding original research, I don't know if it is since I don't know the topic (Bioethics of neonatal circumcision), but if a statement is backed up with a serious reference, it isn't original reaserch per se. At least the ones claiming it to be OR should explain why that is in detail.
I think the way to proceed is to ask on the talk page exactly what makes the article deserve the tags. You could try to clean up the most weasly statements, or remove them, and then remove the tag(s) and ask for people to be specific in what still makes the article bad, if anything. That someone doesn't agree with reaserch cited in the article is of course not a reason to tag it as not neutral or wrong. You may be right in the article being tagged for that reason. It happens. But I don't really know much about this topic or the history of the articles about it on Wikipedia, except that it's been a controversial one. There are quite a few very controversial topics on Wikipedia and getting very involved in many of them is a sure way to get burned out as a Wikipedian. So if you choose to jump in and try to get the tags off it, do it with caution and take a short break from it whenever you notice that it makes you feel angry. Just my advice. Shanes 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that advice, I think it's more than justified. Browsing though the whole controversy on this and related talk pages, I don't think I'm going to "jump in" any time soon, if at all. I'm not an expert on any of that stuff, too. Just wanted to provide an example for what I consider as possibly problematic tagging behaviour, as opposed to simple and good-faithed, if a bit unthoughtful, unreferenced-tagging. Kncyu38 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help to modify a page : English "In vitro fertilisation"

Hello !

I'm an absolute beginner in Wikipedia. I've tried to add some text in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#History to "mirror" the information I've read in the Fr page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9condation_in_vitro

You've remove this text for some good reasons ... !? :) (as I see in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_vitro_fertilisation&action=history)

- There is a technical error - This information is not "approved" by moderators - You don't like this information to appear in the English version

Text I've tried to insert : = The first successful IVF treatment in France took place in 1982 at Antoine-Béclère hospital (Clamart, Hauts de Seine) =

Thanks your help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.60.116 (talk • contribs).


Responded on User talk:82.229.60.116 Shanes 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/a/User_talk%7EShanes_2006-Sep-1_to_2006-Dec-31_a2ca.html"