It is commonly said that anyone can remove unsourced information, and that
the burden lies on the editor who wants to include information to provide a
source. I have always taken this to mean that if I think something is wrong
or otherwise does not belong in the article, then I can remove it at
2010/1/21 David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com:
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last
Apparently there is some kind of coup on English Wikipedia where a large
group of administrators have decided that since the community disagrees with
them, they will use their admin powers to override consensus and policy. At
least that is what they seem to claim it is.
The community is incapable
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2010/1/21 Apoc 2400 apoc2400 at gmail.com:
Is there anyone here who can do something about this before it becomes an
even bigger wheel-war?
Try ArbCom. Keeping admins in check is their job.
Unfortunately, at least one arbitrator is part of the group.
Civil
Fascinating! I note how the article Celilo Falls was created a brought up to
four long paragraphs by User:67.168.209.23. Today IPs are not allowed to
create articles and some want to limit it to accounts that are four days old
and have made 10 edits.
When introducing non-Wikipedians to the
Yes, it's not that difficult to create an account and wait a few days is
it?
You are making the mistake of assuming newcomers think like addicted
Wikipedians or persistent troublemakers. This user only ever made about 25
edits and stayed just over a month, unless he or she got an account or
Indeed. Looking at this:
http://www.floatingsheep.org/2009/11/mapping-wikipedia.html
This is a similar mapping:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imageworld-artphp3.png
I think there is a huge number of notable topics that we have not yet
covered. Sure, there may be fewer sources about
Checking the Village Pump today I discovered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#autoconfirmed_for_unassisted_article_creation
This is an ingenious new way of getting rid of newcomers while officially
welcoming them to contribute. A newcomer who wants to create a
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#cite.php_update
{{Reflist}} has already been changed to allow:
{{reflist|
refs=
ref name=refname1content1/ref
ref name=refname2content2/ref
ref name=refname3content3/ref
}}
A little ugly, but everyone copy-pastes anyway.
Also take a look
This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post by someone
who's been contributing occasionally since 2004, about how daunting
wikibullying can be for newbies and other editors who aren't
well-versed in the procedures and processes.
I think most of us on this list treat newbies fairly well. Now what about
the people that showed up a few months ago, never contributed much, and
spend their time biting newbies?
Let's say I register a new account right now. I go to new page patrol and
start indiscriminately deletion-tagging any
a) PROD is not allowed for any article that has already been PRODed or AFDed,
which means you have to go through the history first - making a 5 second job
a 10 second job (an issue if you plan to do 50,000 articles by hand) and
pushing you down a different route for
There is no way you
When I cite from Google Books I use something like this:
ref name=Wilson{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=Carol|title=Freedom at
risk: the kidnapping of free Blacks in America,
1780–1865|publisher=University Press of
Kentucky|date=1994|pages=43–44|isbn=0813118581|url=
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the
future some time. What's the policy going to be?
You get different answers depending on
The other day I ran across what is perhaps for me, one of the most bizarre
situations with references I've yet to encounter.
Webster's has produced a book.? I found it in some random Google books
searches I was doing on a subject.? It states certain facts and a few of them
I knew to be
The current template code is ugly, but it does work. Few people can
understand the source code of the more intricate templates, which is a
shame, but we are getting very good use out of the ugly wikicode. We have a
huge number of templates that do a lot of good with the limited
ParserFunctions we
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It also aims to define when
The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Full-date_unlinking_botand
comment on the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Full-date_unlinking_bot#RFC
This has been a rather long-running dispute and
From my limited checking, most of the text and images on Hudong seems
to be copied from other websites: news sites, government sites, the
official site of the subject, etc.
They have managed to make an interesting user interface though, a
working WYSIWYG wiki.
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard
It seems the moderator ate the text of my message.
From my limited checking, most of the text and images on Hudong seems
to be copied from other websites: news sites, government sites, the
official site of the subject, etc.
They have managed to make an interesting user interface though, a
20 matches
Mail list logo
