User:Bishonen/My saved bits

Mediators can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, use e-mail to approach one privately. I can either do that, or post a request on WP:RfM. This comes from Sannse on irc 050304. But if I want someone to pass messages and be my språkrör, what I want isn't a mediator at all, but someone from Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates.

Little boxes

Either do like on my Talk, or use this "divbox" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Divbox), which looks much simpler (but is nominated for deletion :-().

A cool way to search Project Gutenberg

A message to the C18 mailing list:

Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:39:47 EST From: Jim Chevallier <JIMCHEVAL@AOL.COM> Subject: A cool way to search Project Gutenberg

Which is to say, to search a good portion of the world's literature.

For a while I've used the Greenstone search tool to search Gutenberg:

http://public.ibiblio.org/gsdl/cgi-bin/library?site=localhost&a=p&p=about&c=gberg&ct=0

But it has a variety of limits.

Now I've discovered this 'Advanced Search' tool:

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/search

Which works a bit more like Gallica - that is, it brings up the search text in context so that you can check that before loading the whole document. Very convenient.

Messages to vandals

Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism

test2a is for them as blank pages.

Dashes

Use the n-dash, it goes like this: "&" and then "ndash" and then ";" (nowiki code not working!!?)–semicolon, not colon!–which becomes on the page: –. And try to decide, already, whether to space around it or not, for my own content (don't change anybody else's choice of style). OK, I'll go with the no spaces.

Full-dress treatment and portal to other punctuation marks in Dash.

To purge server cache

Make an URL on this pattern and hit return: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&action=purge

Diverse MEMOS AND LINKS

Page of metalinks and shortcuts about copyright etc, very useful!

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Cite sources, which is part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Guide to layout, which is part of the Manual of Style

Minimum waste of time

Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention, perhaps superseded by WP:AN and/or WP:AN/I?

New pages

Kate's tools (http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits.cgi)

How to find an old FAC discussion

The addresses look like this: [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/November_2004#John_Vanbrugh)

References vs External links

What of an external link that's a reference? Apparently that's one for the "References" section, since Filiocht said in an FAC comment that "The external links that served as references need to go to a references section, along with any print refs that were used". OK, do I ever even put in any external links that are not used as references? Probably not, but other people do.

To do "strike through"

Write like this to produce the headline: <del>To do "strike through"</del>

To put new article on Did You Know

To put/suggest a newly created (less than 72 hours old) article on "Did you know" on the Main page: go to Template:Did you know or Template talk:Did you know and try to figger what they're talking about (never worked yet).

To write comments in the edit field that don't show up on the page

Write like this:

To make a blockquote

Put

my text

I'll have to look at the code, can't get nowiki to work right

To make footnotes

To make a small sticking-up note n:o 2, write like this: <sup>[[#Notes and references|2]]</sup>. Compare also Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.

Use footnotes only when the inline refs would be long and horrible, which is in practice mostly for articles referring multi-author papers in scholarly journals. Good example of this is being sought. Cat's Eye Nebula is an example of one that needs 'em, not one that's got 'em.

Example of good use of footnotes

Philetaerus, example recommended by Paul August.

Soup, fnord coding with interesting "click back up" feature.

The Country Wife, ditto

Examples of good use of inline refs

For books that can be referred to very simply: John Vanbrugh.

For web sources: yeah, that's missing, too.

For a mix: mhm.

How to autonumber footnotes

Wikipedia:Footnote3 is pretty simple:

"Just choose a one word descriptive name for your reference and put {{ref|<name>}} where you want the footnote number to beTemplate:Ref and put a numbered list at the bottom of your document # {{note|<name>}}. Use a separate note for each reference."

My template generated example note there, being the only footnote3 on this page, naturally goes to note n:o 1. Either numbering the list at the bottom is teh hjärnsläpp, or else it doesn't work with inline references (there is one somewhere above, which is presumably the reason this one gets numbered "2").

External links in text vs. at the end (discussion)

A Talk:Cite sources section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources#References_at_the_end.3F)

Suspected copyvio process (work in progress)

REMOVE SUSPECTED ARTICLE TEXT, ALL OF IT

Replace it with {{copyvio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied material here>}} (Look into how what Keith says, replacing it with — {{copyvio2}} — works)

Write a stub named URL/temp and note that I've done so on the article's Talk page.

Examples permission letters

I have trouble understanding how getting an e-mail back is good enough proof that you have permission, though. Someone told the guy who was trying to prove he was king of somewhere that an e-mail wasn't enough, he should ask to have a statement of permission made right on the website he had copied, so others could check the claim that he did have permission.

__________________________________________________________

Permission

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) 
From: "David Pentrack" < pentrack at cwo.com >  
Subject: Request for permission 
To: "pieter du toit" <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com>

I hereby give my permission for you to use this article - "Chronology of Christianity" from my website. The primary sources I used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M.

Thank you for the great job you are doing at Wikipedia.

David Pentrack

pieter du toit <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com> wrote:

David Pentrack,

I really liked your "Chronology of Christianity"! I found it very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.

Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.

I'd like to include your materials in this article http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline of Christianity; . To get a sense of the freedom of wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now.

We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL (note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)

The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to: http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/

Thank you for your time.

Kindly,

P Du Toit

_________________________________

"Informal (current)"

<AUTHOR | WEBMASTER>,

I really liked your <WHATEVER>! I found it very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.

Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.

I'd like to include your materials in this article http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/<RELEVANT_WIKIPEDIA_PAGE> . To get a sense of the freedom of wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now.

We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL
(note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)

The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

Thank you for your time.

Kindly,

____________________________

Informal (text) *PROPOSED*

Dear <AUTHOR | WEBMASTER>,

I wanted to let you know that I enjoyed your <WEBSITE TITLE> at <WEBSITE URL>. I found it (<via SEARCH ENGINE or OTHER WEBSITE>) while doing research for the free online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", and thought that your information on the subject might be worthy of inclusion in our living and growing document. Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) is an encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that is not only available at no charge, but is also freely distributed. It is one of many projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation

I am seeking your permission to use the text you have written, either directly, or as a reference for my original writing on the subject. I'd like to include your materials in this article:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/<RELEVANT_WIKIPEDIA_PAGE>. (To get a sense of the freedom of Wikipedia, you yourself can edit this page without registration, right now!)

We can only use your material if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely. You can read this license in full at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL (To keep things simple, we do not use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts.)

Note that your contributions may not remain intact as submitted; this license, as well as the collaborative nature of our project, also entitles others to edit, alter, and update them at will, i.e., to keep up with new information, or suit the text to a different purpose. However, the license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that those authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

We choose the GNU FDL license because it is the best available tool for ensuring that our encyclopedia is and can remain free for all to use, and for providing credit to everyone who donates text and images. It may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website -- that's for you to choose. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your <copyrighted?/original?> materials will *not* be used at Wikipedia -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations.

If you do agree to grant permission for use, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission, and by providing a link back to your website.

<You are obviously <very interested/an expert> in your field, and we invite your active collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might be attractive to you. If you are interested, please see:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers for more information!>

Thank you for your time.

Kindly, <WIKIPEDIA AUTHOR>

_______________________________

the Epopt's letter to HMSO

A while (or maybe a while and a half) ago, I sent this letter to HMSO. Feel free to fold, spindle, or mutilate it at will. The reply, by the way, was negative: in the opinion of HM Government, Wikipedia may not use Crown Copyright material.

Controller and Queen's Printer
HMSO
St.Clements House
2-16 Colegate
Norwich
NR3 1BQ

Dear Ms. Tullo:

I am an editor of the Wikipedia, a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate open content encyclopedia. The English-language version may be viewed on the Web at http://www.wikipedia.org/. We gather information from many sources, and government Web sites are often particularly useful. As a unique and highly visible project, we freely and publically release our work, that it may benefit mankind. To this end, we punctiliously respect copyright, and have studied the terms of the Crown copyright carefully.

We understand that we may use your material "free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context" provided that "the source of the material [is] identified and the copyright status acknowledged." Our question centers on the relation between the Crown copyright and our own. We maintain copyright over the material we create, but license its use under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which was designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for free works. You can find the license text at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html. Wikipedia is the largest documentation project to use this license.

The license stipulates that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license. Consequently, we may not inherit the Crown copyright restrictions. For example, although I might copy a work under the Crown copyright accurately, honestly, and with attribution, under the GFDL a third party must be allowed to create derivative works which may be altered deceptively.

We wish to copy material from the Web sites of Her Majesty's Government and relicense it under the GFDL. We would be grateful if you could provide us with the official position of the Stationery's Office on this matter.

I can be contacted by e-mail at [e-mail address], by telephone at [telephone number] (I am in time zone UTC-7 -- please call in your late afternoon), and by post at:

[name]

[postal address]

[city], [state/province abbreviation] [zip/postal code]

[country code]

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[full name]

_________________________________

Another proposition

This is formal and concise, and written by-the-book, in British English. Please do comment.

Dear Sir or Madam

I am writing to you on behalf of the Wikipedia project <http://www.wikipedia.org/>, an endeavour to build a fully-fledged multilingual encyclopaedia in an entirely open manner, to ask for permission to use your copyrighted material.

Your organisation has on its website content which would undoubtedly enhance communication with our target audience; in order to do so, I should like to ask for your authorisation to use such content, namely the [photograph|illustration|etc] located at [URI], under the terms of Wikipedia's licence.

Wikipedia licenses all its content under the licence developed for purposes of free documentation by the Free Software Foundation, the text of which can be found at <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>. It should be borne in mind that if you choose to allow Wikipedia to use the stated [photograph|illustration|etc], it will remain copyrighted to you; however, the said licence stipulates that third parties must be permitted to reuse the licensed work so long that they retain the licence of this work and any derivatives from it. Consequently, you may wish to consider carefully whether you are prepared to compromise some of your rights granted to you by copyright law by licensing your work as suggested.

That said, allow me to reiterate that your material will be used to the noble end of providing a free collection of knowledge for everyone; naturally enough, only if you agree. If that is the case, could you kindly fill in the attached form and post it to [where?]? We shall greatly appreciate it.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully
[name surname]

(alternatively, the salutation can be 'Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Surname' if the surname of the person to whom the letter is being sent is known, in which case the complimentary closing must be 'Yours sincerely' as opposed to 'Yours faithfully')

_________________________

Translation infringing on copyright of original, VfD dialogue 11:24 19 Sept 2004

This is a translation of a French text at [2] (http://membres.lycos.fr/frq/avant_garde.htm). Very literal. Unfortunately I don't exactly understand how translation affects copyvio issues, but perhaps someone can explain. Surely you can't rip off a web source just because it's in a different language? Bishonen 01:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, a translation is a derived work of the original, and the copyright of a derived work remains with the original copyright holder. But perhaps someone better informed than me will weigh in. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...........

OK, please see my copyvio comment above. I've found a statement from Morven on Talk:Copyright problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Translated_pages_of_possible_copyrighted_sites.3F), supporting what Wile E. said (not that I ever supposed he was mistaken), so presumably the next thing is I slap a copyvio tag on the page, delete the text, and list it on Copyright problems? And if the poster is the copyright owner, or authorized by the copyright owner to translate the text and put it on Wikipedia, s/he will need to get in touch and prove it? Right? Please confirm here, and I'll do it. Bishonen 23:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That's how it works. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links for translation

Check on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English occasionally.

Also Wikipedia:Translation_into_English. That's where they link to translated pages that can still stand language improvement. There are links to originals, too! I can help on these.

Yeah, well, used to. :-(

Templates

Note the code in this section for getting the template shown instead of executed!

Tables: Fredrik put the template {{prettytable}} into Krag-Jørgensen, check out how it's used there. It expands to:

Template:Prettytable

Image tags: To say This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired, put {{PD-old}} wherever it is "image tags" are supposed to go, it displays: Template:PD-old. It's for images where the author (author? of an image?) died more than 70 years ago (1934).

Put {{PD-art}} to get:Template:PD-art

This is for images of works of art where the artist died more than 70 years ago. But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one. (view) (How the fuck am I supposed to know what that other licence is?). Do see the Bridgeman link, it's great!

Put {{bookcover}} to get: Template:Bookcover.

To say This article is currently undergoing a major edit. As a courtesy, please do not make edits to this article while this message is posted, in order to avoid edit conflicts: put {{inuse}} at the top of article, DON'T FORGET TO SAVE RIGHT AWAY, and then REMEMBER TO REMOVE IT AFTERWARDS.

Or use the {{inusefor}} template like this: {{inusefor|1 hour to fix the images}}, which displays thus: Template:Inusefor

Tip from ALoan.

Bishonen: The text {{copyvio2}} does it. :) See also Wikipedia:Templates. KeithTyler 18:42, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Kind of useless. When I asked if adding the template would really automagically list the article as suspected copyvio, he said "good question" and referred to the page that I had just been explaining I couldn't make head or tail of. Conclusion: no point in researching any more copyvios, that only annoys people (cf. Cyrius) when I don't do the complete operation, which I still can't. G. can't either.

Votes for deletion: Go to the page you want to delete and insert {{subst:vfd}} (not just {{vfd}}) at the top of that page. List on WP:VfD.

To list a category for deletion: Go to the category page you want to delete and insert {{cfd}} at the top of that page. List on WP:CfD

Speedy: put {{delete}} at the top of the page. "You can also add it to the list at the bottom of this page, but you don't have to." It gets added automagically (not to this list, but somewhere else , so I only list it if I need to write a comment.

- Hey, simpler to use the Delete Because template! Put as it might be {{deletebecause|Islamonazi went through VfD and died. This is just a repost}}, then I needn't list it at all!

This is a disambiguation page: put {{disambig}} at the bottom of the page.

This is a stub: put {{stub}} at the bottom of the page.

To say This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica., put {{subst:1911}} at the bottom of the page or under references.

To say "This article is partially based on content from the public domain "Owl Edition" of Nordisk familjebok", put {{owl}} at the bottom of the page or under references.

To say "This article uses text from A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies [3] (http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/TOC.htm) by Henry Wace", put {{WaceBio}} at the bottom of the page or under references.

To say "Please stop adding nonsense to the Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.", put {{test2}} at the top of the page (the user Talk page, that is.)

To say "This article should be merged with Quintilian", put {{merge}} Quintilian. at the top.

To add books to a reference list, use this template: *{{{Author}}} ({{{Year}}}). {{{Title}}}. {{{Publisher}}}. {{{ID}}}. Note the bullet. Well, that never worked.

How to sign with a temp nickname, yet still get a timestamp:

Put the nickname into user prefs, save. Remove after using. Bish 21:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geogre on redirecting

Done! I went to the existing Bebop page, changed the URL to Beebop, went to "Edit" the page, and entered #REDIRECT and [[ and the correct location. Geogre 22:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to try it next time without the going to the existing page first, it doesn't look like it's necessary.

Right. Do this: go to any regular article page, change the article name in the URL to Fubar, hit enter, then go to "edit this page", enter #REDIRECT and [[ the location being redirected to. --Bish 23:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Album titles, song titles, etc

Album titles in italics, song titles within quote marks. See Wikipedia Manual of Style (titles).

About merge/redirect/list for cleanup instead of listing on VfD

From VfD discussion:

- Sorry, I see now that Older women-younger men has already been put up for deletion under its own steam. And you say you've already moved it? See, when I go look, it doesn't look moved, and isn't carrying a VfD template either. Maybe I'm having a cache bug or something. Checking ... no, the same thing happens when I change from Mozilla to Safari. Maybe the proxy is messing with me. Is anybody else experiencing the same problem in viewing this article, please?Bishonen 10:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, it's Older men-younger women that is listed on VfD, not Older women-younger men. Thank you for finding this third page; I've moved its content to Age disparity's talk page and changed it to a redirect. No need to list it a third time on VfD. (By the way, 66.56.110.36 created all three of these pages. In fact, I don't think any of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.)• Benc • 19:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Clarification on Benc's Talk page:

Hi, Benc, thanks for your patience with my oldermenyoungerwomenolderwomenyoungermen confusion on VfD. (My defense would be that confusion was kind of appropriate.) I was very interested by the comment you made:

In fact, I don't think any of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.

You can do that ...? I've never thought of being bold in just that way, but it would certainly save a lot of time for everybody. You're saying that if I see a clutch of substubs that belong together, I should just change them all to redirects, merge the text in a new article, and send it to Cleanup, (or clean it myself), without first consulting anybody? Wouldn't that outrage a lot of people, who want each information atom to have its own entry? There seem to be a lot of them around. Or am I supposed to start a whole thing on each of the stubs' talk pages first? That would make the procedure even more timewasting than VfD, I think. Not sure I understood your meaning, but I'm intrigued. Bishonen 10:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly can do that — as they say, be bold in updating pages! A lot of time is wasted on talking about changing articles, and VfD is often a hot spot for wasting time, unfortunately. A lot of Wikipedians don't realize that a significant number of articles on VfD don't need to be on there, if someone would only step in and fix them! It took me a little while to realize this, myself, and only after asking explicitly. Check out Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Cleanup on VfD articles: bad form?. Anyway, thank you for your concerns, and good luck rescuing articles from VfD — Wikipedia needs more editors like you who are willing to whip those stubs up into something useful. :-) • Benc • 10:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. - as far as outraging those who want everything just so — don't worry about that for one minute. I've never had anyone complain to me about articles I've rescued from VfD. • Benc • 10:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Images

Photo copyright

Anthony looked it up on irc. anthony ah, here it is...if it was published in the us before 1923, it's pd, but if it wasn't published until after 1923, it's only PD if the author has been dead for 70 years

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Wikipedia:Extended image syntax

Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

Fair use

Fair use checklist here: [4] (http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.pdf)

Image markup from David Remahl

Tjena, läget?

Hi, David, I've only a matter of hours ago learned how to upload images and stick them in articles, and am puffed up with pride. :-) I stuck some of them in John Vanbrugh, and to my great surprise, the four little images of actors lined up neatly in a row to the right of the paragraphs about plays, just where I wanted them, after only 5-6 tries. But I'm wondering about some stuff, if you have the time to explain in words of one syllable:

1. What's with all that ugly waste of space around them? Is it because I put the names into the image links? I see that you, for instance, have titles under your images, on your neat image subpage, and I see in the markup field that you don't have any titles mashed in with the actual image link, the way I do. But I don't understand how to achieve that.
2. Also, supposing I did want a name, as it might be "Elizabeth Barry", set into a kind of frame the way it is on John Vanbrugh, there would obviously be room for the whole of it in one line, if only it wasn't for the small-box-into-big-box button that shoulders Barry aside the way it does. Is it possible to get rid of that button, while keeping the frame? (It only has the same function as clicking on the thumbnail itself anyway, doesn't it? What use is that?)
3. (Sorry, I'd no idea they'd keep on coming like this.) Is there a better principle for lining pictures up in a vertical row than pushing them around at random and previewing till it looks right?

Don't let me bug you if you're busy, appreciate a reply if you're not. Best regards,--Bishonen 23:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll help you as soon as I've finished watching the 5^th to last episode of Prisoner on TV4. In half an hour or so, that is. :-). In the mean time, may I ask what browser and operating system you're using? — David Remahl 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jaguar (I believe you speak mac :-), correct me if I got that wrong ) and Mozilla 1.6.--Bishonen 00:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep, you got it right :-).

The extra space is added by the frame. The frame is displayed when either "thumb" or "frame" is used. They're equivalent, except that "frame" will never scale the image, while thumb will. If no image size is given to "thumb", the image will be scaled to a default size. If "right" is added to the image tag, the image will be adjusted to the right, and text will flow past it. The nice thing is that if more than one image is aligned to the right (or the left, for that matter), they will end up in a horizontal line.

Therefore (answering Q. 3), in your example John Vanbrugh, you can choose where to put the images in the markup. You could put them all in the beginning of the Plays section, or you could put them where they fit in the text.

If you want to avoid the frame, you can't use the "thumb" or "frame" keywords. [[Image:Blah.png|200px|An image]] will scale Blah.png to a width of 200 pixels. "An image" will be the "alt" text for the image (displayed if the image cannot load for some reason, or if the user is blind). The problem with this approach, is that the caption is not visible. To still include the caption, but not the frame, is a bit more complicated, since the regular image markup cannot do it. Instead, it has to be done with <div> and/or <table> tags. Doing this is discouraged, since makes the wiki markup more complex. A better solution would be to add a keyword to the image markup. Something like "frameless", which would include the caption but hide the frame.

Here is an example of using div markup to right-align an image with a caption:

<div class="floatright">[[Image:Elizabeth_Barry.png|Etching of Elizabeth Barry|120px]]<br /> ''Elizabeth Barry''</div>

This is what it looks like laid out:

Missing image
Elizabeth_Barry.png
Etching of Elizabeth Barry

Elizabeth Barry

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Ut odio. Nam sed est. Nam a risus et est iaculis adipiscing. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Integer ut justo. In tincidunt viverra nisl. Donec dictum malesuada magna. Curabitur id nibh auctor tellus adipiscing pharetra. Fusce vel justo non orci semper feugiat. Cras eu leo at purus ultrices tristique.

Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

You can find details about using divs to position images at Wikipedia:Image markup with HTML. This practice is deprecated.

For efficiently lining up images vertically, however, there is another technique that can be used. Though I think using the standard image markup is recommended, despite the lost space. Anyway, using tables (view the page source to see how it is done):

Missing image
Colley_Cibber.jpg
Colley Cibber

Colley Cibber

Missing image
Elizabeth_Barry.png
Elizabeth Barry

Elizabeth Barry

Missing image
Colley_Cibber.jpg
Colley Cibber

Colley Cibber

Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Cras consequat magna ac tellus. Duis sed metus sit amet nunc faucibus blandit. Fusce tempus cursus urna. Sed bibendum, dolor et volutpat nonummy, wisi justo convallis neque, eu feugiat leo ligula nec quam. Nulla in mi. Integer ac mauris vel ligula laoreet tristique. Nunc eget tortor in diam rhoncus vehicula. Nulla quis mi. Fusce porta fringilla mauris. Vestibulum sed dolor. Aliquam tincidunt interdum arcu. Vestibulum eget lacus. Curabitur pellentesque egestas lectus. Duis dolor. Aliquam erat volutpat. Aliquam erat volutpat. Duis egestas rhoncus dui. Sed iaculis, metus et mollis tincidunt, mauris dolor ornare odio, in cursus justo felis sit amet arcu. Aenean sollicitudin. Duis lectus leo, eleifend mollis, consequat ut, venenatis at, ante.

So, while it is possible to get fancy with advanced markup, it is better to stay with the so-called "extended image syntax": Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Hope this helps. — David Remahl 01:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to answer Q. 2. Well, it is possible to get rid of the magnification box, but then you have to display the image at full size. Using [[Image:Elizabeth_Barry.png|frame|Elizabeth Barry]] will get rid of it, but the image will be huge. Again, I think you should stick to the extended image markup. In the future, the software may be upgraded to deal with the problem you describe. — David Remahl 01:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, David, I do appreciate it. I think the oval pictures especially will be improved by getting rid of the stupid square frame round them, and I want to try all the things you describe, and improve my skills. It doesn't sound so hard, after all (meaning you must be a good teacher :-)). Can't reach the server, need I say. :-( The logging-out runaround and the slowness seem worse than ever (this was for hours before the read-only thing), and here am I having actually set aside some editing time this morning, I'm totally frustrated. But, if the servers ever work normally again, I'm looking forward to overdecorating all my articles severely. :-) Now to try (forlornly) to save this message. This is Bishonen, anonymized by whatever piece of machinery it is that keeps logging me out.--213.238.211.112 08:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the servers have been locked for a few hours...Hope they'll stay up now.

I think I should make reasoning behind the advise to stick with the extended image syntax a bit clearer. There are definite problems with resorting to tables. For example, web browsers will not be able to split an array of images gracefully onto several pages, when printing. Likewise, using tables may create trouble if / when creating a print or CD-ROM edition of Wikipedia. And while future layout changes will globally affect images laid out using the standard syntax, images that are positioned using divs and tables will not automatically change. Still, in exceptional cases it is OK to use it, so if you think your case is exceptional, feel free :-). Good luck with your future experiments. Just ask if you run into problems. — David Remahl 08:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Neutrality's talk page.

It would be nice if you could get into the habit of saying where you got hold of images you upload and who owns the copyright. Image:Nixon Agnes.JPG, Image:American Airlines Arena.JPG, Image:Silver Star Citation.gif, Image:West Point Acceptance Letter.gif all need sources and copyright information. Follow the model of Image:Jefferson Davis Statue.jpg for all your image uploads and everyone will be happy. Gdr 10:07, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

An optimum size for images with text flowing around them would be 300 pixels.

From Wikipedia:Guide to layout: Images

If the article can be illustrated with pictures, find an appropriate place to position these images. For more information, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.

Images have to be either GFDL or PD, there's nothing else. From the Village Pump:

I would really, really like to add a photo to Cornelis Vreeswijk (Swedish singer-songwriter, deceased in 1987), but I know there isn't a hope in hell of getting one under GFDL. It just might be possible to get more limited permission, though. I have talked with the Swedish Cornelis Vreeswijk Society, whose website (http://www.cornelis.se/) has a few nice pics, and it turns out they have the photographers' permission for free, but only for their own use — the copyright is retained by the photographer. I think it might be worth contacting one or two of these photographers and asking for the same kind of permission for Wikipedia. They're professionals, they live by selling the rights to their images, and Cornelis Vreeswijk portraits are in limited supply (Cornelis being more famous and popular now than in his lifetime), so forget GFDL. But since they weren't averse to having their work shown for free by the Cornelis Vreeswijk Society, why not Wikipedia, too? That's what I think, but I have two questions:

1. Is this kind of limited permission any use to Wikipedia? I could have sworn I'd seen a reluctant admission in some policy document that occasionally this was the best we could do and in such a case it was acceptable to use images with those conditions attached. But I can't find it again.

2. If it is any use, how should I ask the copyright holders? (Boilerplate request for permission, anyone?) I've been trying to formulate a request in my head, but the harder I try, the more it sounds like something shady. ;-( (I should preferably ask in Swedish, too, which always makes any request sound a little shadier. But if I had a template to work with, I could deal with translation issues.)--Bishonen 14:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. Limited permission is definitely second best. Ask the photographer for GFDL if possible.

2. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. Gdr 14:59, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but my problem is that it's not possible. Or, well, it's possible to ask, but I think it's impolitic to lead with a request that's bound to be refused. It's not that I don't realize that GFDL is totally the recommended option, infinitely preferrable, etc. I do realize it. Also, I only see the familiar boilerplate requests for permission under GDFL at the link you give (am I missing something?). Sounds as if the answer is no to both, then. I've been roaming Wikipedia for weeks looking for a solution to this, but, well, I guess the reason I couldn't find it is that it doesn't exist. :-( Thanks for trying, Gdr.--Bishonen 15:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it will hurt to ask for GFDL even if you think it likely that you won't get it. If refused, you can ask for a more limited license. Gdr 15:50, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Sorry to throw cold water on the idea, but because Wikipedia is committed to providing open content, we can't accept images if our only basis for using them is a non-free license such as this. Jimbo Wales has stated that images restricted to noncommercial use only, or with permission specific to Wikipedia only, are not allowed.

I think what you're referring to with "a reluctant admission in some policy document that occasionally this was the best we could do" is our policy on fair use images. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Currently we do allow images if we can make a good case for fair use and have little prospect of obtaining a truly free substitute.

So the answer is, if you believe the image can be justified as fair use, it may be acceptable. Fair use is not based on permission, but of course it would still be useful to obtain whatever permission you can from the copyright holder, even though with fair use you are claiming permission is not needed. --Michael Snow 16:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right. I understand the concept of fair use, and, no, that wasn't what I was talking about. It was something different, that would have fitted this case ... well, I must have dreamt it, or else it was obsolete. I certainly couldn't in good faith claim fair use, since there aren't any PD photos of Vreeswijk out there. I'll forget the whole thing, then, and not trouble those copyright holders. I do understand that we need a transparent policy, rather than a jungle of exceptions, and thank you both for your prompt replies. Bishonen 19:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cornelis links

[5] (http://www.cornelis.nu/bilder/tiger.jpg)
[6] (http://home.online.no/~obrubak/cv_kikar_hoger_fade.gif)
[7] (http://www.cornelis.se/recke.html)
[8] (http://folk.uio.no/hanakrem/music/cornelis1.html)
[9] (http://folk.uio.no/hanakrem/music/cornelis2.html)
[10] (http://www.cornelis.se/profil.html)
[11] (http://www.bostream.nu/bokmarkt/bilder/cornelis.jpg)

Angela on images, sept 2004

Hello Giano, currently, if you want to use an image from the Italian Wikipedia here, you need to download it to your own computer, then re-upload it to the English Wikipedia. There are plans to make this easier in future, and discussion of how all images could be shared across the projects is happening at the Wikimedia Commons.

When you upload the image here, please write on the image's description page who uploaded the photo to the Italian Wikipedia, and state which licence it is under. ou can add a tag from the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. For example, if it's GFDL, add {{GFDL}}. If you don't know the license, you should add {{unverified}} or {{unknown}}, but such images may be deleted in future.

When you are translating whole pages from Italian, you should say who the original authors were and that it is from the Italian Wikipedia. The way I would do this is to list the authors in the edit summary if there are just a few, or on the talk page when there are lots. However, IANAL, so can't say whether this is the most acceptable way of meeting the terms of the GFDL. It's just my interpretation of the licence.

I hope that helps. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any more questions. Angela . 22:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It would likely be a good idea to include an interwiki link in each image article also. For example for the image here, you would include a link like [[it:original image.png]] and for the italian version, you would include a link like [[en:new image.png]]. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 12:14, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Tables

Help:Table

OlofE on Bybrunnen

Hej, wikipedianer, har ni nån motsvarighet till en.Wikipedias sida Vandalism in progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress) här på svenska wiki? Jag kan inte hitta nån. Tänkte bara i så fall titta efter IP:na till ett gäng svenska vandaler som har härjat på engelska wiki (men just har gjort avbön där och lovat sluta). Om det skulle vara så att de är till besvär här, så har jag information om dem, och kanaler till dem. Bishonen 1 september 2004 kl.21.23 (CEST)

Jag har kollat upp förhållandet på engelska wikipedia, och jag antar att vissa av dem även har vandaliserat svenska wikipedia 31 aug & 1 sept. Lamré 2 september 2004 kl.07.42 (CEST)

Jaså minsann. Det intressantaste tycker jag är om dom har dumpat några skräpartiklar på er efter att de lovat en.wiki att sluta, dvs efter 17:38 UTC 1 sept. Om så har skett behöver ni kanske ta itu med dom här. (Själv har jag redan ägnat för mycket tid åt det hela, kan inte ignorera brödjobbet längre, tyvärr.) Alla identifierade "bidrag" från Göranssonska skolan på en.wiki har blivit speedy deleted, men jag har klistrat in texten från ett par stycken på denna sida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Records_of_vandalism) om någon vill se hur de typiskt ser ut. Där ser man även namnen på de misstänkt inblandade. För mer info, se även listningen på Vandalism in progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VIP#164.4.31.79), mitt brev till gänget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.227.148.223), deras avböner på min Talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Vandals_of_G.F6ranssonska_Skolan.2C_Sandviken_2) och inte minst på David Remahls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chmod007#Vandals_of_G.F6ranssonska_Skolan.2C_Sandviken). Bishonen 2 september 2004 kl.10.21 (CEST)

Onekligen irriterande... tack för infon! // OlofE 2 september 2004 kl.10.52 (CEST)

Ett antal av de just nu, och nyligen blockerade användarna, har IP-nummer som såvitt jag kan se enbart bidragit med klotter, alternativt raderingar, sporadiskt över en längre tid. När de nu återkommer, varför inte blockera för längre tid än ett par dagar? Pellaj 2 september 2004 kl.11.05 (CEST)

Detta är en anledning till att jag inte tycker om att "användarbidrag" inte räknar upp de sidor en användare skrivit som sedan raderats. Många gånger har jag sett att en användare har varnats för klottring, men det finns ingen chans att se hur mycket vederbörande har klottrat, eftersom användarbidragssidan är helt tom (alla deras bidrag är raderade). Är det dags att blockera vederbörande, eller ska man ge vederbörande varning 2? \Mike

Jag har också funderat på detta, men det gäller helt enkelt att ge varning 2 innan man raderar sidan i fråga. Det vore fint om raderade sidor fanns kvar i loggarna... --Alers 2 september 2004 kl.11.25 (CEST)

Jag har nu tittat på användarbidragen från 81.227.148.223, 164.4.31.79 och 164.4.31.80 på sv.wiki. Dessa killar har varit mycket tidsödande med sina nonsensartiklar på engelska wiki. Endast en svensk ser ju nämligen direkt att t ex en världsberömd svensk filosof från trettonhundratalet vid namn Niklas Modigh är nonsens. De stackars amerikanerna ger sig istället ut på fruktlösa Googlejakter och vågar knappt föreslå radering. ("Tänk om det är en berömd gammal svensk filosof, vad vet jag om svenska filosofer?") Hur som helst, killarna har ju som ni märkt klottrat även här. Den berömde medeltidsfilosofen Niklas Modigh från en.wiki dyker upp på sv.wiki som känd bäver på Skansen (se historik för Bäver). :-) 164.4.31.80 lämnade seriösa bidrag i mars 2004, men övergick i juli till att klottra istället. Tråkigt när det går åt det hållet, men det var väl puberteten som slog till. (Bidrag till Svin: "Vildsvin har stor kuk"). Emellertid, jag har inte sett något klotter från dem här från de senaste dagarna. (Fast Lamré såg något från 1 september, det gjorde inte jag — hur dags var det?) Jag hoppas att upplevelsen av att bli jagade på en.wiki, jämför mina länkar ovan, har fått dem att tappa lusten för barnsligheterna över huvud taget. Om någon ser tecken på motsatsen framöver så droppa gärna en rad på min engelska diskussionssida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen). Jag har två IP-adresser till i bakfickan, och ett färdigskrivet ganska taskigt e-mail till deras skola. Och gissa vad David Remahl har? Hemtelefonnumret till den kände filosofen och bävern Niklas Modigh. :-) David hade precis tänkt ringa numret när killarna tog sitt förnuft till fånga och svarade på mitt brev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.227.148.223). Hallå där, Famous Sandviken Gang, om ni händelsevis läser Bybrunnen, ni har ögonen på er på svenska wiki också. Undrar om jag borde kolla tyska wiki och ett par till också förresten ... ja, kanske det. (P.S. Hej, Mike, kul att se dig igen! "Sång till Skåne" på en.wiki ligger kvar och ser dum ut, ingen admin har velat befatta sig med något beslut om Delete/Keep efter den giftiga debatten). Bishonen 2 september 2004 kl.21.25 (CEST)

Nä, det förstår jag att ingen vill ge sig på! Trevligt dock att du hittat hit också. \Mike

Vad för sorts skola är det de går på (har inte orkat kolla), och är skolans IP inblandat? // OlofE 2 september 2004 kl.22.44 (CEST)

Här är skolans hemsida (http://www.goranssonskaskolan.com/). Teknisk gymnasieskola sponsrad av Sandvik AB, mycket fina IT-resurser, individuell workstation för varje elev (obs). Men de IP's jag har vill inte resolva med reverse DNS lookup, så vad vet jag. Jag är ingen compugeek över huvud taget — om nån av er kan ta det från andra hållet, alltså om det går att ta reda på skolans IP, så är det så mycket bättre. "Skolan utnyttjar Sandviks globala datanät" står det på hemsidan, om det är till nån nytta. Ja, ni hör att jag är okunnig på området. Bishonen 3 september 2004 kl.00.27 (CEST)

Åhåhåhå! Vandalisering från ett företags nätverk? My god how stupid can one get. // OlofE 3 september 2004 kl.09.06 (CEST)

Vandalisering av artikeln om Tony Blair flera gånger sista timman Tubaist 3 september 2004 kl.09.20 (CEST)

Denne proteshjärna, 195.84.119.221, har blivit blockad från flera communities,och hans (?) inlägg har censurerats på diverse diskussionsfora! Lamré 3 september 2004 kl.17.28 (CEST)

Händer det en gång till så tycker jag vi kontaktar skolan (om nu inte det redan är gjort?) Hakanand 3 september 2004 kl.19.09 (CEST)

Öh, nja, nu är ni way ahead of me. Olof, du som är datanörd, det är jättebra om du kan dra några slutsatser av kombinationen Sandvik AB + de IP's vi har, men bara på min information är det annars inte särskilt lämpligt att skriva till skolan just nu. Jag vet att 164.4.31.79, 164.4.31.80 och 81.227.148.223 går på Göranssonska skolan, och att det finns fler än de tre, men vet inte säkert att de har opererat från skolan, även om det verkar troligt. Jag har förklarat för dem att jag är beredd att skriva till skolan om de inte lägger av, men jag hoppas och tror att de har lagt av. (De har lovat göra det och hållit det hittills, och jag vill "assume good faith".) 195.84.119.221 hör inte till dem vad jag vet. (Ordet proteshjärna var nytt för mig, jag gillar det. :-)) Bishonen 3 september 2004 kl.22.14 (CEST)

164.4.31.79/80 ägs av AB Sandvik Information Systems. 81.227.x.x är en Telia-adress (Telia Netweork services, dvs någons hemdator antagligen). 195.84.119.221 ägs av Oskarshamn Energi AB, med NET-NAME "OSKARSHAMNS-KOMMUN-NET" dvs antagligen en hemanvändare på ett kommunalt bredbandsnät. Men 164.4.31.x, ujujuj. Inte vidare smart. Jag tycker Darwin ska få tala. // OlofE 3 september 2004 kl.22.58 (CEST)

Reverse sexism

Complete copy 7 Sept, now that it's rolled off VfD with very few people actually looking at it. If it gets merged or redirected, I still want this backup, after all that trouble.

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy .
Please vote on and discuss the matter. See this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Votes for Deletion.

Sexism as a practice is negative discrimination against individuals or groups based on their sexual identity, and sexism as an attitude is the belief that one sex is superior to the other. Reverse sexism might be expected to refer to the opposite: a refusal to discriminate between people on the basis of sexual identity, and a belief that the sexes are equal. The word is however rarely used in this sense. "Reverse sexism" is a term strongly charged with gender politics, and many people have a submerged or open agenda when they use it.

These are some of the main ways different groups of speakers use the term:

1.As a good thing. This sense relies on a feminist assumption that sexism, however the dictionary defines it, always in practice means negative discrimination against women, the historically non-dominant gender. To these speakers reverse sexism means favoring of women, and they recommend it as a piece of justice, for instance in hiring policies, in view of existing gender imbalances.

2. As a bad thing. This sense relies on an anti-feminist assumption that the historic imbalance in favor of men has in our day been redressed or even reversed. These speakers agree with group 1 that sexism means discrimination against women, but they go on to argue that discrimination against women is in our culture being replaced by discrimination against men, i. e. by "reverse" sexism. Like group 1, they use reverse sexism to mean favoring of women/disfavoring of men, but they consider the practice of it to be bad and unjust.

3. Self-consciously, "in quotation marks". A Google search in September 2004 suggests that the term is used very commonly with qualifications like "so-called reverse sexism", and in attacks on its logic and value. These arguments condemn as illogical the way speakers of groups 1 and 2 refer to a kind of sexism as reverse sexism, and a common slogan here is "Reverse sexism is sexism!" These speakers may share historical and gender assumptions with either group 1 or group 2 or fall somewhere in between, but more commonly they tend to side with 1.

Because of the paradoxical character of the term and the strong emotions involved, there are also many speakers who fail to fit into this simple scheme.

Intellectual dishonesty

On Cleanup 12 Sept 2004. Gives me a very copyvio feeling. If I find anything wrong, check out the whole family, including the See alsos at that fork Google found!!

Merge and delete copyright issue (VfD)

This page is about the dog of the guitarist from Good Charlotte. The band is notable, but I don't think their pets are. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:42, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed; Merge and delete. --Golbez 01:05, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete; it's already on Benji Madden, so no need to merge. But if this is going to be in the Benji article, I'd at least like to know if the dog's name is actually "Cash Dog" or just "Cash". Everyking 01:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Merge and delete" is not an option on VFD due to the limitations of the GFDL. In this case it's enough to just mention the pet on the owner's page and delete this. —Rory ☺ 01:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- When I said merge, I meant do it artfully, not a straight copy paste - as in, I dunno, mention the pet on the owner's page and delete this. Isn't that something like what you said? Lemme get this straight - if the dog info weren't already on Benji's page, we wouldn't be allowed to mention the dog AND delete this page, because the author somehow owns the mention of the dog? Merge and delete is a valid vote, and policy should be changed to reflect this. --Golbez 02:12, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  - Merge, as I understand it, means to take the actual content of one page and add it to another, rather than merely copying any extant information and rewording it. In this sense it isn't allowed, since the original contributer would go uncredited for the copied material. Of course it's fine to just use one article as a source when adding to another and then to delete the first. It's irrelevant in this case since the information is already in the other article. —Rory ☺ 11:24, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
    - Merge & delete isn't a GFDL problem if credit to authors is preserved. In the case of content derived from, let's say, 1 editor, it's easy enough to copy the text with an edit summary like Stuff copied from now-extinct Cash dog, credit to some loser at 200.92.223.223 for burdening us with the task of cleaning up after him. What it means to give credit to an anonymous editor, I don't know, but mechanically at least credit of this form is equivalent to the automatically-generated edit history. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - In the case of an anonymous IP I think it would be necessary to preserve both the IP and the time of the edit to ensure enough identity was preserved, but you're right. —Rory ☺ 21:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete the article, but never the dog. Geogre 02:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, merge and delete, but artfully. --Jpittman 03:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. All of the information here is already in Benji Madden, so all of the hand-wringing over merging is pointless: nothing to merge. — Gwalla | Talk 03:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed w/ Gwalla. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

delete FBarnes 15:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My comment on ballot-stuffing at the Village Pump 18 Sep 2004

In previous cases where this has happened (the naming policy poll comes to mind), the votes of brand-new users were moved to their own section and (more or less) ignored as obvious ballot stuffing. →Raul654 05:49, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

That's some previous cases, Raul: sometimes it's done that way and sometimes it isn't. A notable case of ballot-stuffing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/European_Union_Olympic_medals_count_for_2004) on VfD in August also comes to mind, where the admin counted new-minted voters just the same as established users (apparently so; when his count was challenged he didn't choose to comment on this aspect of it) and declared himself forced to keep the article. I think your example and mine, placed side by side, illustrate completely unacceptable variation in sysop vote counting practice, and that's why we need a specific rule. Bishonen 02:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P. S., adding figures: there was a lot of interest and strong feelings in this VfD case. By my count 50 pre-existing users voted: 15 to Keep and 35 to Delete. Don't remember exactly how many new-created accounts there were — can't face spending any more time in the tangle of that record — but those voted overwhelmingly to Keep. Bishonen 08:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Words as words

Italicize words when they are being written about, rather than being used to write about what they refer to. Similarly for letters.

The term panning is derived from panorama, a word originally coined in 1787
- The term ''panning'' is derived from ''panorama'', a word originally coined in [[1787]]
The letter E is the most common letter in English.

Notes

Template:NoteThis is the footnote belonging to the Footnote3 system.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User:Bishonen/My_saved_bits"

Categories: 1911 Britannica | Pages on votes for deletion

User:Bishonen/My saved bits

Admin tools

Deletion tools

Mediation

Little boxes

A cool way to search Project Gutenberg

Messages to vandals

Dashes

To purge server cache

Diverse MEMOS AND LINKS

How to find an old FAC discussion

References vs External links

To do "strike through"

To put new article on Did You Know

To write comments in the edit field that don't show up on the page

To make a blockquote

To make footnotes

Example of good use of footnotes

Examples of good use of inline refs

How to autonumber footnotes

External links in text vs. at the end (discussion)

Suspected copyvio process (work in progress)

Examples permission letters

the Epopt's letter to HMSO

Another proposition

Translation infringing on copyright of original, VfD dialogue 11:24 19 Sept 2004

Links for translation

Categories

Templates

How to sign with a temp nickname, yet still get a timestamp:

Geogre on redirecting

Album titles, song titles, etc

About merge/redirect/list for cleanup instead of listing on VfD

From VfD discussion:

Clarification on Benc's Talk page:

Images

Photo copyright

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Wikipedia:Extended image syntax

Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

Fair use

Image markup from David Remahl

Tjena, läget?

Please give origin and copyright status of images, Jul 26 2004

From Wikipedia:Guide to layout: Images

Images have to be either GFDL or PD, there's nothing else. From the Village Pump:

Cornelis links

Angela on images, sept 2004

Tables

OlofE on Bybrunnen

Reverse sexism

See also

Intellectual dishonesty

Merge and delete copyright issue (VfD)

My comment on ballot-stuffing at the Village Pump 18 Sep 2004

Words as words

Notes

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools