Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:51, 5 August 2009

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

• WP:VPM

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Problem on Era conversion

This topic has been removed to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Luffa

Can someone revert the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/Luffa, the 'Use by Humans' section has been vandalised and is possibly libelous. Regards 90.205.32.78 (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean this, someone reverted it. In the future, when you see obvious vandalism like that, you can click "undo". See WP:UNDO and for more information, WP:VANDALISM. Art LaPella (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sending email to OTRS and users privacy?

I need to forward an email containing a permission to OTRS. I want know can a user with OTRS access see my IP address in the email header (X-Originating-IP)? Can a user with OTRS access trace my PC IP address? Mpics (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not the most tech-savvy OTRS volunteer on the block, but I've had a look at several e-mails in the OTRS queue, and I don't see an originating IP anywhere, just e-mail addresses. There certainly is no handy tool for tracing your IP address. I believe that only checkusers have that capability. Perhaps a more tech-savvy OTRS volunteer will pop by, but, if not, I hope that helps. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, but dose OTRS email interface have some option like "Full header", "View original" or "View source" similar to Yahoo, Gmail and Hotmail? Mpics (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an odd thing to be concerned about with OTRS in particular, seeing as anyone you send email to, ever, can see those headers -- especially given the extensive vetting process involved with getting access to OTRS, there are other groups or people you should probably be much more worried about. I would be surprised if someone concerned about this sort of thing wasn't already using some proxy or other anonymizing service. My understanding is that OTRS volunteers are indeed able to see email headers, but given the work load I doubt they're going to worry much about it unless they have some reason to. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm an OTRS members. Yes we can see the full headers. BJ 06:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So what about users privacy? sending a simple email to OTRS can work as CheckUser and expose users IP address. the only different is that only few users have CheckUser access and it have some rules but for OTRS many users may have access to emails, I think this is a privacy issue, for me maybe I just don't send email to OTRS but for hundred of other users whom may not be aware that they are exposing their IP address this is really a concern, someone should make a rule about it and maybe eliminate Originating-IP or complete header from OTRS email interface. Mpics (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. Anytime you send an email to anyone, they can see your IP. As Luna said, the OTRS volunteers are not going to look at or think twice about the IP unless they have some reason to. The OTRS permissions people do not run mini-checkusers on every email that they get. If you don't want people to be able to see your IP address, the solution is to just not use the internet at all. Anytime you do anything on the internet, someone somewhere can see your IP. Given that for the vast majority of people, an IP address isn't really personally identifying information, my advice would be to just take off the tinfoil hat, but its your life. Mr.Z-man 15:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to hijack the thread, and I don't personally need to see more than I see, but I'm curious: where? I see from/to/subject/created/attachment. From seems only to be originating e-mail address. Of course, I've only just figured out how to "watch" a ticket, so it might be obvious to some. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply use an Anonymous remailer? APL (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand me, I do every week email to lots of people, that's not a problem, and I don't even think about those people knowing my IP, I am also aware that many websites collect lots of information, even if Wikimedia Collect my personal info I don't care, but when it comes to some indevisual person, who is don't have any responsibility in Wikimedia foundation, that's a big concern, I can not just assume that all the wikipedia editors have good faith. right now many users have OTRS access and I am sure that you don't know all of them, you don't know what they might do and you don't necessarily trust all of them.
IPs are not necessarily dynamic, some of us may use Static IP, even dynamic IP address have lots of useful information, and someone, some company or organization or some goverment may use that information.
Well it's a wikimedia policy that when someone register and sign in to wikipedia nobody can sees it's IP except in especial cases like Sock puppetry and users personal information should be confidential. Also APL's solution may be good and little complicated but that not cover and protect all the users around the world. I believe this kind of information should be confidential so why not simply remove those email headers and Originating-email information from OTRS email interface? Mpics (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

When you send an e-mail to anyone (including the OTRS team), you disclose your IP address. If you don't want to disclose it, don't send any e-mail. End of the story. guillom 07:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comment thoroughly, this is not about sending email to anyone (ordinary people) this is about a privacy hole in Wikimedia caused by OTRS system, where Wikimedia Privacy policy should be applied. Mpics (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mpics: If I understand the above correctly, only the very limited set of people with OTRS access can see the headers. They are all highly trusted by the community. Yes, it might be possible to trim headers, but then it would sometimes be hard to validate that the permission came from someone in a position to grant that permission. These are the people we are trusting to verify the identity of people granting permissions. It would be perverse not to let them see the email headers. - Jmabel | Talk 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did read your comment thoroughly. And my answer remains the same: if you don't want to disclose your IP address, don't send any e-mail to OTRS. The WMF's privacy policy is about wikis, not OTRS (see §2). And we're not going to change how we do things because of a few paranoid users. Hence why this discussion is moot. guillom 18:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Privacy policy covers all avenues by which users can access private information via Foundation-operated sites and servers. Which is why OTRS volunteers are explicitly included in the list of 'users with access to nonpublic data' and are required to identify to the Foundation. From a privacy perspective, OTRS volunteers are trusted by the Foundation to the same level as CheckUsers. Happy‑melon 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

An easy solution: the "email this user" function of Mediawiki does not include your IP address in the headers. So if absolute privacy is needed, you can send an email directly to the username of an OTRS volunteer and ask them to forward it to the OTRS queue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You can also send an email to User:Misplaced Pages Information Team, though it might take longer to be routed to the correct queue, especially for permissions. Mr.Z-man 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another easy solution: use Gmail's web interface. It omits your IP from the headers. Pslide (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference: mail.google.com - User IP Addresses - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but isn't some sort of identifying information actually needed for OTRS to do it's work. When we seek permissions to use media under an open license it is preferable that the person granting the license is identifiable. Same goes for legal issues. Taemyr (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dashes on main page

Should the spaced em dashes on the main page be changed to en dashes, if only to set a MoS-compliant example? Pslide (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody objected to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 20#Edit screen message, so I don't think anyone will object here either. If nobody objects in a few days, I'll change Template:WikipediaOther. Art LaPella (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That archived topic is actually why I decided to post. Pslide (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to be too fussy, but should those em dashes be spaced ens, to match the rest of the main page, particularly On this day? Pslide (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right again!  Done Art LaPella (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

HowTo Wiki !

Wikibooks has textbooks on car maintenance and repair:

Automobile Repair Electric vehicle conversion Automotive Systems Chinese Tractor Maintenance Nissan 240SX Performance Modification …

I think wiki foundation should make a dedicated service-wiki or howtodo-wiki. There are not easy to find how to do things on internet, like how to fix things on your specific car, how to fix things on your house, how to fix your laptop or how to get that sunflowers in your garden to grow.

My idea how to build such site. Each guy can make their own detailed 'how-to' with preferably many pictures and maybe video. It should be the easiest how to available, so even untrained persons are able to do it. Also with an optional easy and short step for step only text sript for short and fast description of procedure. Users may give out stars to each how-to, and owner of the 'how-to' may choose to whether allow people modificate it or come with suggestins or adding comments to it. Every person can make his own how-to on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikalus (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the foundation provided this for us years ago. Take a look at WikiBooks which lets you write books on all these service and how-to topics. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikia. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Or wikiHow. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Signature

I want to customize my signature, but I don't know how. --Di-Gata Connexion (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Click on "my preferences" on the top right hand corner of the screen. Scroll down to the signature section and follow the instructions. Just don't use any templates or subst any templates. Hope that helps, MuZemike 22:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For more advice on the Do's amd Don't of customizing your signature, see here. - Pointillist (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You might look around to see other people's signatures, and find one that you like, then edit a page that has that signature on it, to see how the User created it. Be sure to click "Sign my name exactly as shown" on your Preferences page once you've set up your signature. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How others see us

Recommended listening for anyone who is starting to take editing here too seriously. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. I particularly liked the "teddy bears" article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

College course assignment: improve the Misplaced Pages articles you use

I teach a "first year seminar" course at Penn State for bioscience students. They each choose a topic to present to the class and lead discussion. I encourage them to start their research with Misplaced Pages, as it is a quick way to orient themselves to a topic and find further references.

This year I want to add a new component to the assignment. They will be required to choose at least one Misplaced Pages article to which they will be required to make substantive additions and/or improvements based on their further research.

Question: does the community have any ideas or resources that will enrich this assignment, either for the students or for Misplaced Pages? Preferably both.

I'm a sometime author and frequent anonymous typo fixer, so I think I can find the materials to train them in the technique and cultural ethos of Misplaced Pages editing. I'm looking for something fanatical wikipedians could suggest, nonobvious to dabblers like me, that might enhance this assignment.

In particular, are there community standards that I could use to evaluate this assignment rigorously?

James Endres Howell, Penn State University 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmer (talk • contribs)

Being a student myself, I can't vouch for completeness or accuracy, but WP:SUP seems to be a good collection of information on using Misplaced Pages in this way if you haven't seen it already. Piotrus is one user I know uses Misplaced Pages as a teaching tool. It will also help, I think, if everyone has a go - both teachers and students! Anyhow, good luck. - Jarry1250  16:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked Jimmer - I hadn't seen WP:SUP before. I knew there were somethings going on, but I hadn't realized how many. Hope to see your project added to the list - maybe updating that page could be an assignment - I'm trying to decide whether it should be a reward for the best student, or a punishment for the worst:)--SPhilbrickT 20:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jbmurray ran a similar project, and has written a couple of essays about his experience: Was introducing Misplaced Pages to the classroom an act of madness leading only to mayhem if not murder? and Advice on Using Misplaced Pages in Colleges and Universities which you might find useful. He used the community rating standards of FA and GA to evaluate the articles. Gwinva (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, everyone! Those references are precisely what I was hoping for! James Endres Howell, Penn State University 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmer (talk • contribs)

Best practices documentation team

Best practice in public outreach is a collection of articles describing experiences in winning new volunteers, partner, contents and audiences. Given that several chapters already developed successful projects to engage new target groups or deepen relationships to newly Wikimedians, the Best practices in public outreach page is a forum for those who want to share their knowledge and for those who want to spread the word.

We are looking for contributors to be involved. If you would like to be involved in public outreach, please list your name at m:Best practices documentation team, and participate in the discussions. If you think someone you know would be good for this, please point them to this page. --Cary Bass (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette about AFD

What is the Misplaced Pages etiquette for AFDs? If it is a wacky article, then it is clear. Nominate it. What if it looks reasonably written but just doesn't fit the notability criteria. There is an elementary school article that I saw. High schools are deemed notable. Elementary schools must prove their notability.

However, other crap exists. Should one be on a rampage and AFD the other crap? Or kindly suggest that notability be explained on the talk page first and either do nothing or AFD if nothing is done?

What would the best behaved and respected Wikipedian do?

FYI, the article is Red Hill Elementary School. User F203 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule, but it is always a good idea to do a search yourself, to see if you can come up with any sources to establish notability; see WP:BEFORE. If you come up empty-handed in a search, it is probably safe to go ahead and nominate it for deletion. If the article is relatively new or looks like it is being (somewhat) actively worked on, and looks like it might be salvageable (except for the notability issue), it would be a good idea to tag it for citations and wait some time before coming back and nominating - but abandoned articles, or ones that look unlikely to be fixable, go ahead and nominate. In summary : read WP:BEFORE and use some common sense. Shereth 17:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To address your specific example, a Google search turns up little of interest. Google News archives pull up 3 matches, none of which are more than tangential. Nothing in the article indicates that this school is notable, and it looks like the article isn't in any state of active improvement - probably safe to nominate this one. Shereth 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone think that an AFD of this article is bad behavior or overly aggressive? User F203 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine why they would. That doesn't mean someone won't come out of the woodwork and complain, but as long as you follow WP:BEFORE, you've got the bases covered and there really is nothing to worry about. Shereth 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't go on point-making sprees. Follow the procedure in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What do to. Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving an image on en:wp

Hi,

I am trying to insert commons:File:Suitcase2.jpg to Luggage locks, but there is an identically named File:Suitcase2.jpg on en:wp. In order to use an image on commons, I need to delete File:Suitcase2.jpg and re-upload it with a different name. I am unfamiliar with these procedures, so I would appreciate if anyone could do these for me. Thanks, in advance.--Tomo_suzuki ( talk ) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just do the upload to En WP with the new file name and tag the "old" version for deletion as a duplicate. Make sure you change the image links in articles where the old image is used. It may take a little while for the old image to be deleted, so please be patient. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology

About two years ago, I made one of the worst decisions of my WikiLife. My RFA was a gigantic failure, and I lacked the maturity to understand that. I would like to apologize for my lack of maturity back then, two years later, I can clearly see my mistakes. To be honest, I am very glad that I was denied adminship, as my behavior would have been totally destructive towards Misplaced Pages.

My answers towards the questions come off as a complete joke today, my violent opposition to vandalism has changed. I misunderstood nearly every one of the policies regarding Wikipedian interactions with others. I failed to assume good faith, I fed the trolls, I didn't stay cool. I seriously and authentically am sorry for my misinformed opinions on Misplaced Pages. To think that I behaved like that once totally disgusts me, I acted like a troll towards fellow users, I treated Misplaced Pages as a source of social-networking, as a place to have mischievous fun. Needless to say, I totally misconstrued the meaning of Misplaced Pages. Despite a familiarity with WikiCode, not having the maturity to treat work seriously makes the most knowledgeable of scholars deeply destructive towards the project.

About a year and a half ago, took up admin coaching with Bibliomaniac15 to identify many of my problems, both ideological and Wiki-Wise. In retrospect, I find most of the problems that were identified came from a need to appeal to others: in short, I cared too much about what others thought of me, forgetting about my purpose as an editor in the first place.

I think you should ask yourself not how to improve your image, but how to improve the encyclopedia. Likewise, you should not desire adminship. It's like growing up, you always wish you could grow up so you can do things that you couldn't do before, but at the end it turns out that they're a dreary, dreary existence exacerbated by stress and conflict. I truly think that you are a user with much potential (which is why I offered to coach you); you have great zeal and dedication for the encyclopedia, but I believe that you need more experiences to actualize that potential. Occasionally, (to be perfectly honest), I find that you may have some trouble with staying mature. This is a problem that you have largely overcome since your past username, but it's still something to watch for. I believe the best course of action for you is either: to build up an article to GA or even FA status, or to help mediate disputes, say at third opinion. It is only through passing through trials and tribulations that you can gain the trust of the community and the mop. bibliomaniac15 05:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My misunderstanding can also be traced to my level of knowledge at that time. I failed to understand the importance of civility, arbitration and the role of an administrator. I mistook the mop to be a "medal of honor", and pursued it without regard to those who may be affected by my actions. I have been through many real-life experiences since then, and those experiences have taught me a lot about myself and my interactions with others.

I've spent over a year editing sparsely, and after a long period of inactivity, I wish to make a return to Misplaced Pages. This time, I want to be a helpful and constructive editor. As a person, I have went through radical changes to my lifestyle and worldview, those changes have greatly impacted my ability to communicate and collaborate with others. Thus, I feel that I am now ready to contribute constructively.

I am deeply sorry about my past as an editor. From the Userpage Contest to my RFA as well as my non-constructive contributions to deletion discussions and RfAs, I want to apologize for everything I did wrong.

Thank you.

 Marlith (Talk)  05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't an apology is necessary. Simply being the closest you can be to a model contributor is plenty. Cheers. – ClockworkSoul 06:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

May your new-found maturity show you a better side of wikipedia. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Paper

The article on Paper and the articles on specific kinds of paper like Cotton paper mostly have the Misplaced Pages China project template on the talk page, which is correct, since almost everyone agrees that paper was invented in China, with maybe some dissent advocating Egypt. However, origin and history is one thing, but the technology is certainly another. I could not find a paper related article with any kind of technology project template. I am cautious about merely adding the technology template, but I am unsure what other template would be more specific. Ideas? Comments?--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Alma mater - abstract question

Just a real unscientific straw-poll, of which I'm asking here (and generically) because I want the community's reaction without any other influencing factors...

Suppose Mr. X attended an accredited university for a couple of semesters before dropping out. Credits earned were not used towards any degree, and Mr. X never earned a degree. Is it proper to list the University as an "Alma Mater" for Mr. X?

I will also cross-post this question to the infobox talkpage. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• How does the dictionary define "alma mater"? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Dictionary definition is "a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated.". /20:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.130.232 (talk)

• I remember being "corrected" that as long as the person attended even one semester, they could "claim" to be an Alum of said University/College. Not sure how that effects the bio or info box ect or if that is even correct. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Agree -- this one could go either way (hence abstract query here seeking wider input). I think, however, that while "technically possible", I think such a designation in an encyclopedic article is a dubious assertion at best (and probably will imply to most readers that the subject actually graduated). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question, Blaxthos and Niteshift36. The OED has:

Alma Mater:

A title given by the Romans to several goddesses, especially to Ceres and Cybele, and transferred in English to Universities and schools regarded as ‘fostering mothers’ to their alumni.

It's probably helpful to look at the word alumnus, "foster son" in Latin, and the feminine version alumna, "foster daughter". The idea is that a graduate is a foster or adopted child of Alma Mater ("nourishing (i.e., dear) mother").

alumnus:

The nurseling or pupil of any school, university, or other seat of learning. Also, a graduate or former student (chiefly U.S., esp. in pl.).

Usage examples: 1823 J. & R. C. Morse Traveller's Guide 320 The number of alumni, that is, the number who have been educated at each college since its establishment. 1906 Springfield (Mass.) Weekly Republ. 28 June 10 Tuesday was alumni day at Yale, when hundreds of old graduates..gathered in alumni hall.

alumna: Plural alumnæ. A female graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. Chiefly U.S.

It seems Alma Mater usually refers to the university Mr. X graduated from, though it's sometimes used for a former non-graduated student. Mainly though, it seems to be used to define the university/college from which someone did graduate. –Whitehorse1 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps attended would work better? Soxwon (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Attended" is fine in the article text (though lack of graduation should be noted)... however this query specifically is to address the use of the "alma mater" tag in {{infobox person}} template. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Might be an idea to post at WikiProject Universities directing here. –Whitehorse1 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So a good example would be Steve Miller (musician), who attended, but dropped out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. MuZemike 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A simple solution is to stop using the ambiguous term "alma mater"; that is, you can say "Mr. X graduated from XYZ" instead of saying "he is an alma mater of XYZ." In an encyclopedia writing, it's always better to prefer an unambiguous language to ambiguous one. -- Taku (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TakuyaMurata that the meanings of infobox fields should be unambiguous, and I would go further: infobox fields should have the same meaning on every wikipedia, because that allows (semi-)automatic translation. It is confusing to see that en:Angela Merkel, es:Angela Merkel and it:Angela Merkel all use Alma mater while fr:Angela Merkel has Diplômé de, or that es:Richard Feynman has Alma máter at Princeton, fr:Richard Feynman has Diplômé at MIT, and en:Richard Feynman has Alma mater at MIT and Princeton.

Given the choice between Attended and Graduated from I agree with Soxwon that Attended would work better. For example:

• Attended and Alma mater both imply "influenced by" or "formed by" (which I think is what Образование means in the ru:Angela Merkel article). You don't have to graduate from an institution to be formed by it.
• Some students don't graduate because of war, illness, family circumstances, transfer to another university, etc., (see this search) but if they become famous their original institutions are nevertheless keen to recognise them as alumni (e.g. Bill Gates and Michael Dell);
• It is safe to convert Alma mater into Attended automatically, but it isn't safe to convert it into "Graduated";
• Anyway, for BLP purposes, it is usually easier to find evidence of Attended than evidence of Graduated from.

BTW, I don't know where you've cross-posted this question to, but it would be useful if you could encourage all the answers to be posted in a single place. - Pointillist (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• And simply changing the template from "Alma mater" to "Schools attended" was my suggested solution to this issue in the article that spawned this question. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think that if the dictionary (I used Random House, feel free to use your own) meant for the term to mean "always graduated from", they would have said so. But they said "usually", which means that the use for a person who attended a college but didn't graduate from it is correct. Look at the bio on Barack Obama, which lists one of his alma maters as Occidental College. He did not graduate from there. The bio on Jimmy Carter lists Georgia Southwestern College as an alma mater, but he didn't graduate from there. It also lists Union College as an alma mater, but his sole attendence there was a non-credit course. Even the wikipedia article Alma mater says in it's opening paragraph: "In modern times it is used to refer to the university or college a person attended." The same article goes on to repeat: "In the English language, it is often used in place of the name of the university or college from where a person has attended or graduated". So clearly the dictionary feels that the use for a school someone attended but didn't graduate from is appropriate. So does the Misplaced Pages article on the topic. And there is precedent for it in other bios. If the body of the article clearly states that someone attended, but didn't graduate, where is this "false impression" coming from? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether the use of a term is "appropriate" per a dictionary and what many people think can be very different. In this case, using "alma mater" will definitely mislead some readers in those cases where an individual attended but did not graduate. Is that their fault? That's irrelevant: Misplaced Pages editors should use "attended" where a person did not graduate (or graduation status is uncertain), or "graduated", where appropriate, and leave out the latin term altogether. Clarity first. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting that "graduated" means we cite a reliable source to confirm it, or do you mean we should assume graduation unless we have a reliable source casting doubt on it? Sounds a bit of a maintenance minefield to me: wouldn't using "attended" in its natural sense be the easiest and safest approach? - Pointillist (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • John, at what point do we stop worrying about what might happen and just deal with facts? If a person glances at an info box and doesn't bother to read the article, then I say shame on them. Life isn't all sound bytes and Headline news. I agree that "attended" makes more sense and I already proposed that in an article where this topic is under discussion. But I hate to think we are doing it just to dumb it down for those too lazy to actually read the body of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That people, in your view, "should" read articles as well as infoboxes doesn't mean that we should put stuff in infoboxes that might be misleading. Why have an infobox at all if we're totally OK with the possibility that someone will be misinformed from having read it? Croctotheface (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why write articles at all? Let's just have page after page of info boxes? Just because people, in your view, may misunderstand what alma mater really means doesn't mean that we should just throw the actual definition out in favor of one based on the opinions of a few wikipedia editors. I don't see why people would be misinformed. Nothing untrue is being stated. That some people have an incorrect understanding of a term is their shortcoming. I'd be interesting in watching the reaction if someone tried to remove Occidental College from the Barack Obama article. That is a feature article that does the exact thing we are talking about here...listing an alma mater from which the subject did not graduate. Perhaps you haven't thought of the flip side of this. Maybe someone will see the infobox, then read in the body of the article that the subject didn't graduate and this will lead them to actually find out what alma mater means instead of just assuming they know. Is that any less plausible than your theory?Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift36, smartassed comments are unwelcome and unproductive. For one, most people would argue that you're misusing the term (or at least trying to stretch its meaning to the limit). For two, Barack Obama actually has several degrees, so your analogy doesn't really carry -- the point here is that Mr. X has no degree, and his credits were never awarded, conferred, or transferred. As croc said above, let's just not put misleading or ambiguous information into infoboxes. What's the harm in leaving it out? None, but there's plenty of opportunity to give a factually incorrect impression by putting it in. It almost looks like you share some sort of partisan ideology with the subject and are trying to give readers the incorrect impression that Mr. X did receive a degree from said university... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• And being called a smartass is unwlecome too. For one, you claim "most people" would argue that I'm misusing the term. Well guess what friend? I see people agreeing with me. My Obama and Carter examples are right on point. Your claim is that alma mater means a school you graduated from. Neither man graduated from all the alam maters listed in their bio. You're just trying to bootstrap with your "well they got a degree somewhere" backpeddling. And don't give me the "they transferred credits" song and dance either because you and I both know that Jimmy Carter didn't transfer a NON-credit course, especially since he didn't obtain another degree after that class. As for your "partisan ideology" theory.....well, I will reamain civil even though you won't.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, as someone else also noted, your comment about "why write articles at all?" is obvious smartassery and should be called out as such on sight (and to which I will offer no apology). With regards to the rest: Now it's Jimmy Carter... This thread was started without trying to align the discussion to any particular person or ideology, and is clearly noted in both the section title and the original statements. It would appear that your zeal for arguing along ideological lines only serves as further evidence that this isn't a good faith argument, but rather a transparent attempt to wage a battle along your ideological perspective. Indeed, the thread was moved here to get away from that sort of partisan hackery and more towards a neutral discussion of the proper use of the term "Alma Mater." I think it's unfortunate you've attempted to turn this into a battelground as well.  :( //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think definitely change it to "attended". Both to make it less ambiguous and less Americani(s/z)ed. I've certainly never heard of the term "Alma Mater" outside of a U.S. context. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We should systematize the way in which encyclopedic, Public Domain sources are identified and integrated

I put this proposal on another page, but someone told me it didn't belong there. Exiled, it settles here.

As you know, much of Misplaced Pages's growth has come from swallowing up & citing other encyclopedic, public domain sources. (For example: articles marked with {{1911}} contain stuff from the 1911 Britannica; similar sources have been listedhere. For a journalist's description of the phenomenon, do a full-text search for "Britannica" in this article.)

I think we should try to systematize the process by which these special sources are identified, assigned to articles, and then incorporated into these articles. If we did so, this content would be incorporated into Misplaced Pages at a much faster rate, and yet also in a more controlled and supervised fashion.

I co-created a template with User:Drilnoth that performs these functions in a rudimentary way. This is only a proof of concept; I just am looking to find people who might collaborate with me to improve this system.

You insert {{refideas}} at the top of an article's discussion page, and include a hyperlink to one or more of these special sources. The text of the template reminds editors that such content, properly cited, can be added to an article without infringing copyright.

Here's the important part: these pages are automatically aggregated in Hopefully, some people will view this category as a "portal" pointing to articles where they can make mindless, yet high-quality, contributions. For example, over the last month I created approximately 1000 articles usingthis Congressional Research Service Report, and credited the source using {{CRS}}, a new template created for the purpose. I expect that some of the most transformative edits to articles on this list will be made by middle-school students who have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever -- simply by copying, pasting, and citing.

Thoughts? Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you add the category to the page Misplaced Pages:Maintenance, including the navigational template on the right (specifically, the "Referencing" section). (In general, the best way to make this category more useful, as well more used, is to provide links to it from the pages which editors already visit.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just plain awesome. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a real problem with this... it sounds like we are encouraging lazy editors to go out and cut and paste material from free sources into our articles. We don't want Misplaced Pages articles to be a cut and paste job of material copied from other sources... we want Misplaced Pages to be a unique resource... better than other sources. We want to encourage editors to actually read other sources and summarize what they say. I think this idea is flawed. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Even though I don't share Blueboar's opinion, I think it's a legitimate one. I also recognize that it's the view of a large number of Wikipedians. In fact, the reason I'm posting here is to adjust my proposal to accommodate these perspectives. I'm grateful for this continued feedback.

1) Any scholarly endeavor must be accompanied by a "source gather", yet "External Links" or "Further reading" have not been designed to serve this purpose. Therefore, there should be a template that's placed on the talk page of articles, whose purpose is to gather, annotate, and otherwise organize sources that have not yet been integrated into the text.

2) This template should specially identify whether each source is "public domain"; NPOV; and/or well-footnoted. PD sources are especially valuable because they do not pose any threat of legal liability to Wikimedia.

3) If the template contains a source that falls into all these categories (CRS Reports are of this character), it should add the article to a category like this one.

4) What people choose to do with the items in that category is another question, and a contentious one. The page should probably be closely scrutinized and supervised, and should include a detailed banner detailing Misplaced Pages's policies on POV, citation, copyright, plagiarism, etc.

5) {{refideas}} meets these conditions in a rudimentary way, but it would need a major overhaul before I would advocate its use.

Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Style on DAB name pages

The link from Joseph Baker, Republican on the Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012 goes to the Joseph Baker disambiguation page. I added him on that page as follows:

• Joseph Baker (Vermont), Republican member representing the Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012

However, I am unsure that this is the correct approach, and I am unsure about adding (Vermont) when it could be (politician) or something else. My questions:

1. Should the disambiguation page say Joseph Baker (Vermont) or Joseph Baker (politician) or something else?
2. Should whatever is chosen as the answer to the above question appear on the Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012 article, turning it red, instead of having the red link on the disambiguation page?
3. After answering the first question, should I go around looking for other mentions of Joseph Baker as a member of the Vermont legislature, and change those mentions to be red links, too?

This is not the only instance of this problem for the Vermont House of Representatives members, and very likely it happens elsewhere, too. An editor puts Joseph Baker in a list, sees it is blue, but doesn't follow the link to see the disambiguation page. Worse, sometimes the disambiguation page has a link to the actual bio, when that link should be at the first instance of the name.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not in a position to lecture, but I can tell you what I just did with another disambiguation. 1) Politician, if no other Joseph Bakers are politicians, and Joseph Baker was notable mainly for being a politician 2) Yes. This is half the use of redlinks on disambigs I guess : to set out, in an organised fashion, which title the page should be at. In fact, you should only include the redlink if the term is redlinked elsewhere. Thus, it is appropriate to make them red links most of the time. 3) Yes, per 2). Anomie's link classifier can help established editors know when they've just linked to a disambiguation page; many WikiGnomes help in this respect. I can't recall any obvious cases where John Smith was a disambiguation when only one actual person was called John Smith and the other bluelinks were the names of companies or whatever. I can imagine a two page company vs. name scenario though, and then its done of which is the most common / should there be two different pages anyway? Sorry for the lack of useful links, but I hope that helps. - Jarry1250  13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. I will fix the Joseph Baker situation, and I will know what to do with this kind of situation in the future. Perhaps I will look into the Anomie link classifier, too, but the Joseph Baker link was there already for me to stumble upon in the course of doing a different kind of fix. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have some way to identify pages as being high-risk for commercial spam?

I have a proposal, but I'd rather not post at :Proposals until I've gotten all the bugs worked out (those people are exacting!). Please take a look at this:

My friends at WP:Law just got through removing the spam at Lawyer referral service, and it got me wondering whether we have (or should have) an annotated list of pages that are at high risk for nuanced commercial spam?

At this resource, we wouldn't simply LIST the pages; we'd attempt to CHARACTERIZE the riskiest spam. That's why I say "nuanced"; there are some forms of spam that take some ... ummm ... calibration to get used to: Calibration#External_links, for example. The entry for Au Pair would attempt to characterize this drivel.

Having dedicated patrolers isn't enough to fight this sort of "nuanced" spam, because to the untrained eye it might look like a helpful contribution. This page would serve as an "encyclopedia of wikipedia spam" to let people know what to look for.

Thoughts? Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this idea has some merit... I removed a particularly stealthy example this evening from human papillomavirus. I posted a summary about the peculiarities of the site here. – ClockworkSoul 05:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps a template {{spamwatch}} at the top of the talk page. But rather than typing the warning into the template, the text of the warning is transcluded from a central page, so the text can't simply be blanked. (keeping folks from deleting the template, though: that's a problem.) Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 06:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to discriminate here. Some articles need more helping hands in reverting spam than others.

Maybe we can make up some kind of new page patrol/flag protection for something like this? I dream of horses (T) @ 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Review Needed (Of An Article On A Eastern European Dictatorship)

Dear Misplaced Pages. Could editors of Misplaced Pages please do a reassessment of the Josip Broz Tito article. The article is embarrassing. The Eastern European Dictator is portrayed as some sort of pop star (what is this all about/also it's very strange) and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. Also considering he was responsible for war crimes, mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment makes Misplaced Pages look like ad for Eastern European Dictatorships. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Misplaced Pages has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this & how on earth did this article come about?Sir Floyd (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The article came about because an editor created it, and many different editors expanded and changed it, adding text and citations. There is nothing to "look into", in that regard, and there is no one here who is responsible for doing so. Yes, the article certainly needs improvement, as does virtually every article in Misplaced Pages. But it's up to you or others who decide to get involved to actually get changes done.

So, if you really want to improve the article, you should post specific suggestions about what you would like to see added, deleted, and reworded, at Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Please do not comment there about possible motivations of other editors; this is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Rather, you should focus strictly on what article changes you'd like. And please do this incrementally: start with (say) two or three suggestions, each in a separate section. Finally, if you want to be taken seriously, it's best if you provide citations (whether on-line or off-line) to sources that support your proposed changes. (This isn't necessary if you're pointing out where cited sources don't support the text of the article, or where the language is not neutral. Please read WP:RS about what types of sources are and are not acceptable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John Sir Floyd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

User requesting password

Hey, a user (not me) requested a new password. the IP it was requested from is: 218.103.63.121 I am not watching this page, but don't mind correspondence relating to this. --Callek (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied at user talk. Just ignore it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic Research Study Survey: Final Call

Thank you to the Misplaced Pages community for your participation so far in this ongoing research study, and for your response to our previous post on the village pump. We plan on keeping this survey open for one more week and would like to encourage anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to participate to take the survey described below.

As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut, we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate.

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Misplaced Pages community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Misplaced Pages community.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

Sections template

I just added the{{sections}} template to Siege of 's-Hertogenbosch, but I cannot find any mention of that template on Help:Sections, or by searching. I did it by just trying it. This template should be mentioned on Help:Sections, but only with a link to the documentation, which I have not found yet. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

2,980,990 articles in English

I see 2,980,990 articles in English today, and no doubt this will rise. Is there a celebration at three million articles? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards