Wikipedia talk:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Assistance • Miscellaneous
Skip to: Table of contents | First discussion | Bottom of page
Village pump miscellaneous talk   post
This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages below, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
Shortcut:
WT:VPM
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

« Older discussions | Archives: 1

Contents

Please note that the Village pump talk pages are rarely used, but might allow to archive relevant discussions.

[edit] Old discussions

Why is this page in Category:NPOV disputes? Filiocht 11:08, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Someone referred to it in a reply: I've added a ":" -- ALoan (Talk) 11:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I really should have spotted that myself. Filiocht 11:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)



[edit] style suggestions for VP and WP:HD

Do we have any distinct responder guidelines for the WP:VP and WP:HD pages? I'm thinking about things like:

  1. Anyone responding should practice utmost WP:CIVILITY, being particularly mindful of WP:BITE
  2. Anyone responding should avoid use of wikislang, wikiterms, and wikibreviations (e.g. those at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend), but instead actually type the entire normal English words. If you can't speak normal English anymore, take a wikibreak (I mean take some time off). I think responders should specifically avoid use of "newbie" for "new user" since it has a dismissive connotation. "anon" for "anonymous user" is more neutral, but I suspect close to nonsensical to a new user.
  3. Anyone responding should minimize use of wikimarkup and, where it's necessary, use the simplest markup that will do the job (which is often perhaps not the most compact or "elegant").

Anyone have any more? And anyone know if such a list already exists anywhere? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

For all of our sakes, it should at least be okay on the talk pages, as long as what you're saying is readable! --Wack'd About Wiki 20:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are personal rants acceptable here?

Regarding this edit.

Are personal rants, complaints with no relevance to Wikipedia, etc. acceptable material on this page? I know that comment wouldn't be acceptable in userspace, and I think that disparaging the people of Rock Springs is probably not something we wish to promote. --tjstrf 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. That is not what the village pump is for. —Mets501 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, good. I've been removing the occasional really weird/random junk we get here for a while, and was hoping I hadn't been guilty of accidental vandalism or anything. --tjstrf 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I've seen some odd questions on village pump pages before, and from what I could tell, they are normally responded to with something approaching a "Huh? I think you're in the wrong place." and then left for the bot to archive in 7 days. I think this has something to do with the fact that Village pump is a place where new users who are clueless about what Wikipedia is and how it works wind up.

A lot of people have never heard of Wikipedia, or know nothing about it other than that "X's son uses it for homework and says it's a great place to find and share information." They come here with a question, comment, or complaint and wander around lost and eventually wind up at the Village pump. It's nice to let them know, just in case they ever come back, that Wikipedia is not whatever they think it is. Leaving odd comments for 7 days doesn't hurt much, and is a form of not biting the newcomers. At least, that's what I think and that's why I reverted your edit. I could be mistaken though. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case it was harmful, as it was insulting Rock Springs. I believe we try to avoid insulting places just as much as we do people. --tjstrf 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia needs a forum board...IMHO.

How about phpBB. I'd prefer IPB or vBulletin based, but I figure since Wikipedia's free and open-source, the board should be too. --John R. Sellers 02:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is sort of like that, but it generally puts Wikipedia in a negative light. —Mets501 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Users who are not familiar with that site should be aware that it is not actually "like that," but rather a forum that is designed to harbour banned editors, and engage in harassment against editors here. Its criticizms are regularly ignored, and using the forum with any regularity is considered a black mark by many editors here. If you wish to communicate in a forum-like atomosphere, use the Wikipedia:Mailing Lists. MOASPN 12:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that, at least if associated with the WMF, a forum would detract from the "purpose" of building an encyclopedia (in the eyes of some). However, it doesn't stop any member from setting up their own forum for Wikipedia discussion/socialising. Martinp23 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There's also a forum for Wikipedia on Usenet. It's called alt.wikipedia but it doesn't receive a lot of posts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye ISBN

How is Wkipedia going to handle the ISBN10 -> ISBN13 issue? The change date for this gigantic debancle will be 1-1-2006, which is next week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

There's been some discussion elsewhere. A bot was converting all ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s, which breaks links to various sources which haven't caught up yet. The reasonable opinion (which may or may not have gained consensus) seemed to me to be that Wikipedia should wait until pretty much everybody has books findable by ISBN-13 before making the switch mandatory. Argyriou (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
1-1-2006 is next week? OMFG I must be in a time warp Nil Einne 02:16, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

The actual inaugural date is, umm....now, I believe. Cryptonymius 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ending disruption caused by rants about Chinese Wikipedia

I've just extended the block on User:SummerThunder to indefinite due to continued block evasion, which was done to rant about the Chinese Wikipedia, including disruptive cross-posting across the other pages. (Indefinite is not infinite, he will probably be unblocked if he promises to stop being disruptive, but that's not what I'm posting about, so moving on.)

As we have no jurisdiction over the Chinese Wikipedia, moderating such rants is a total waste of everyone's time - both ours and those ranting about it. I suggest we put a stop to it, now - archive the current discussions and revert any further postings relating to this matter and those participants. The participants can take their complaints about being banned and any other issues with zhWiki to the appropriate place. Thoughts? --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. As I said at User talk:Ran, "I don't really see why they're posting this here - this is the English Wikipedia and there's nothing we can do to help them on zh.wiki (except for the Chinese-speakers). If they have concerns they can go to meta or try the mailing list." We should probably archive the discussion about the Chinese Wikipedia, and move on. Khoikhoi 00:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've been considering an AN/I report, but decided I was too embroiled in the situation and that I should step back aside from reverting any socks I saw. There are presently 8 or more topics whining about the zh.wiki right now, including the especially offensive "The chinese wikipedia problem - the Chinese communist spies" attack rant which was apparently reposted AGAIN. This is excessive, harmful, and needs to stop as soon as possible. --tjstrf talk 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts: WP:SOAP, WP:RBI. I hope Summer understands that he's being blocked because he is simply breaking the rules, and not because we are picking on him or trying to silence his opinions. –Gunslinger47 00:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, I doubt it. He seems to have thoughts along the same line as User:Cplot did/does: anyone who opposes me is obviously a sockpuppet or member of the conspiracy. Never hurts trying though. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as archiving goes, I would suggest using the same format as closed discussions on deletion review - the discussion is left in its original place, hidden, but a click shows what's been posted. It looks less like censorship than the alternatives of deleting the text or moving it to an archive. I'll do it tomorrow (i.e. when the sun is up on 2007 where I am) if there are no serious objections by then. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Support the block. SummerThunder has continued the same behavior which got him blocked from zh and meta. He doesn't seem to get it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this biting him in any way? --AAA! (AAAA) 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. He's hardly new in any sense, as he has had ample opportunity on 3 Wikis to reform. --tjstrf talk 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the Village Pump pages semi-protected?

Anons often come to the Village Pump with legitimate questions and comments. They are part of the community too. I understand that there is a problem user who keeps inserting a diatribe about US Government agents controlling the 9/11 article; but is that really a reason to completely exclude anons from the community? To forbid us from asking questions or making comments or helping others? 70.231.126.33 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the village pump is absolutely the last place that should be semi-protected LukeSurl 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Fire

Today I Expanded the chicago fire article! I am doing a speech on it at school. NS Zakeruga

Have fun!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slander? Sock puppetry accusation

Hi - I think what's going on here is simply outrageous. I was slandered as a sock puppet and my page defiled by some idiot. Now, is there a due process of any sort or someone with powers of devinity (why? who?) can just brand other users with slanderous titles and place sock puppet tags on their pages? I am using Roobit user name in English and Russian wikipedia and only English wikipedia has been affected. I am not a sock puppet of anyone, I never used proxy and I register and write from my own email address. What is taking place here is absolute disgrace. If someone dislikes your views, he can just brand you a sock puppet? Do you need a crowd of tame users who express identical opinions or have no opinions on their own? How has the power to slander other users in this manner and what is the remedy against it/him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 06:34, January 3, 2007

  • You might try convincing WP:RFCU to say that you and the alleged-puppeteer post from different IPs. Whether they agree is unclear. semper fictilis 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The same thing has happened to me recently. I'd like to hear what happened to your case and if you have any advice, please let me know. Lojah 23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

I have no idea how to to file the right kind of request for comment or mediation or arbitration, or whatever. I have a determined troll following me around "proceduring" me to death. He has been following me around through a series of articles that I have been working on, constantly editing things while I am in the process of editing them too, demending changes, moving things around.

One of the big problems, frankly, is that the topics I am working on require some knowledge of Hebrew and a lot of knowledge of Jewish philosophy and theology. This editor, who knows nothing about these matters, is simply creating one stumbling block after another, always citing some wikipedia procedure. He appears to be going to my contributions file to see what I am working on, and then going there to mess something up.

I frankly don't want to know all the Wikipedia policies and procedures. I want to write. I've been doing so for about a year, and so far, I've been very happy with it. I've asked him to back away. I asked him to come back and edit the article later in the day, or in the evening. I've offered for both of us to leave and come back in a week, to allow some other writer a chance to work. Whereever it is I am working, he seems to want to be there.

Wikipedia needs contributors who are writers, who know a subject well, who do careful research work in the subject and write well balanced and thoroughly sourced articles. I am such a person. I don't claim authority in any field, like an advanced degree. (I do have a degree, I just don't claim that it matters here on Wikipedia.)

What I can do is easy to see from what I have done. I have started dozens of articles, and never had one deleted, working some of them through to completion. Many of them are on serious scholarly topics. I enjoy writing. I don't claim to "own" these articles. If I wanted that, I would write somewhere under my own name.

What happened to me over the last few days was an incident of procedural harassment. I have never experienced anything like it. User:ZayZayEM has been following me around through a group of articles that I have been working on, creating a long series of procedural problems. Each time, he cites some Wikipedia policy for why he is of course right.

I'm not interested in arguing about Wikipedia policy X or Y. I am interested in writing. I am not interested in going thourgh some kind of elaborate Wikipedia arbitration determination procedure, in which we somehow determine who was right.

It's very simple. There are 1,697,500 articles on Wikipedia that this person could be working on right now, and most of them do need work. User:ZayZayEM could be working on any one of them, but instead, he chooses to harass me.

Looking at his recent logs, his last RfC was a few days ago. I've never had one. I didn't even know what an RfC was until a few days ago. This user is simply looking for fights.

If I'm supposed to go to some kind of arbitration panel and write some kind of elaborate defense or request, I'm outta here. I'm not interested in spending time doing that. I've never bothered to figure out how to cite logs, and I don't want to. User:ZayZayEM has presented an endless series of procedural hurdles, and such a process would be more of the same, and a complete waste of time. I'm sure that once the process was finished, he would be back to more of the same.

He knows nothing about the topics that I am trying to write about. I would welcome a collaborator or two who does, but this fellow isn't that collaborator. He simply creates endless headaches. Each time, he cites the wikipedia policy under which he is of course "right," but if I then try the same thing back, or try to suggest something else, there is some other Wikipedia policy under which he is also right, or he switches to something else that he wants.

I've read that Wikipedia is interested in the product, not the process. Well this user is obsessed with the process, and presents endless hurdles to improving the product.

If your answer is that I'm supposed to file wiki-dot-colon-xxxcite-procedure and wait for a wiki-xxxxarb-med-committee to volunteer to handle the case, my answer is no. That's his game, not mine. I'm sure he is good at it too. --Metzenberg 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you bring this concern up immediately at WP:AN/I. Wikistalking is defiantly harassment. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you need help with that. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Edit to add. Wait, is this talk page active? That last was written in MARCH and no one answered? :-/ --S.dedalus (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are personal rants acceptable here? (2)

Many people are not aware that a person need not be named for a libel to occur. Recently Feedbac10 posted an insulting and possibly libelous comment about a person he or she identified as "The NUT at" a certain store in Singapore. It was removed, but not quickly enough. No, personal rants are not acceptable if they involve defamatory remarks about living people. Sincerely GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Winter storm by season

I think it has to divined Winter storm of Northern Hemisphere(ex:winter storms of 2006-2007)and Winter storm of Southern Hemisphere(ex:winter storms of 2007).140.133.6.7 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)