Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 11

message: Hello, I would like to know how I can get my own wiki email address. I would love to have one and I have supported wiki ever since I visited for the first time! User:Resources of Sheboygan Club
:Sorry, none of the Wikimedia Foundation websites (which include Wikipedia) provide e-mail addresses - they are all for members of the board etc. However there are many websites such as Google Mail that provide e-mail addresses for free. Please note you should use the + button at the top to add a message to a page and can sign your comments with ~~~~ that produces your username and a timestamp. Lcarsdata (Talk) 06:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you're thinking of is the feature that allows people to e-mail a particulat user, using an email address chosen by that particular user, without the actual email address being revealed to the general public. Harryboyles 06:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Email 

message: The article Tumkur has a clear piece of advertisement in it. I don't know what to do with it. Can an experienced user please look into it and also advise me as to what to do if I come across such things. Thanks Shruth 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply add  to the top of the article (or section) that is a piece of advertisment. Lcarsdata (Talk) 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instance of advertisement 

message: Can we add a link to the media creation guidelines I suppose are here?--I hate to register 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not guidlines as far as I can tell, so they probably do not merit a place on the Community Portal however if that page was promoted to guideline or policy it would. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's linked at Help:Contents (and doesnt need to be a guideline. It's just a help page). --Quiddity·(talk) 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media guidelines 

message: Being slightly pedantic - the entry/title "Guidance on publicity photos called dangerous" is slightly ambiguous. Jackiespeel 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to contact someone about this please contact the Wikipedia Signpost, they are not related to the Community Portal (except the subscription is here). Lcarsdata (Talk) 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Signpost 

message: Is the references form at new references format policy?  Why is it being "pushed" on the Wikipedia: Community Portal? SteveMc 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hardly say it is being pushed, however I don't see why you have a problem with it - it's something people can help with. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's at a user subpage, because he wrote it, and the tool itself resides at his own website. (Nothing has to be "formal" around here. We're just a community of volunteers after all ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New references format 

message: Is there much interest in doing a little more coordination of the high-level color palettes on pages like this, the reference page headers and the main page? I've listed some of these palettes at User:Rfrisbie/Palettes and have been following Wikipedia:Colours.  Overall, the palettes are fairly well stylized with some minor inconsistencies here and there. Agreeing to some HSV color space palette conventions, existing or revised, could tighten things up a bit, as well as offer guidance for adding additional hues and/or multi-header palettes, whether on high level pages or others that want to use the style. Rfrisbietalk 04:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for it, I kinda hoped you and John were going to just forge ahead with it ;) --Quiddity 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My wikitime has been reduced lately, plus high profile pages seem to need a little more consensus-building than most. I could tweak the colors here just a bit for starters, if no one objects. Rfrisbietalk 05:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks great :) --Quiddity 18:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-level page color palettes 

message: Is it really necessary to post the disclaimer that information is a "spoiler" as is the case in an increasing number of articles? This seems inappropriate to me in an encyclopedia format. I understand why this is used in fan forums but the Wikipedia ideally provides authouritative articles on a variety of subject matter. There should be a n assumption that if someone is looking up an article that it may to contain a comprehensive account of a subject. I don't think it's appropriate to adopt a fan page convention in this case.
:I think it would be rude to tell people that SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE or that [deleted], especially if they hadn't read the book/seen the movie/whatever. ~ Flameviper 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG! You just told me what happens in the story, I haven't finished it yet. :( Lcarsdata (Talk) 06:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the 2nd spoiler. Some people won't have read the book yet, and don't need it spoiled here.  --Quiddity 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! You just proved my point! ~ Flameviper 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it again. Please stop spoiling things. Thank you. --Quiddity 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: I understand the principle of a pulldate; to keep the list from growing like something that grows out of control. But what if there's only one thing on the list? It could just stay there until something else comes up. Whatever. ~ Flameviper 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the CBB looks weird when it is empty. Lcarsdata (Talk) 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulldates? 

message: Could someone please create an interwiki link to :pih:Wikipedia:Trii'nohlij?  Thanks.  Norfuker 10:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Misza13 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou! =) Norfuker 10:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norfuk Community Portal 

message: I'm a bit new to wikipedia as an editor, but a long time reader... I think this may be a good place to mention this though I a bit unsure. Anyway, the Largest Organism page has more errors than any other page I have ever seen on wiki, the page is tagged, but it seems noone with any expertese has stoped by in a few months or so. could someone please tak a look? Thanks, if this is the wrong place to mention this sort of thing plese steer me in the right direction, thanks again. John Doe or Jane Doe 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Organism 

message: Are there any plans to allow access to Wikipedia via WAP?, or does it already exsist?. If not this would be the ultimate for those Pub Quiz's!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lz57s9 (talk • contribs) .
:See Wikipedia:WAP access. -Quiddity 18:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding Wiki to WAP wiki 

message: Reviewing the discussions I have encountered during my short time on Wikipedia – when I look back on it all – either in disagreement or consensus; what a wonderful place to be this is, whether we need it or not – instantaneous democracy – whatever it means – with all its faults and fruits is hardly expressed better than within this forum.  So many hard feelings have been expressed towards a result that is so good that I can't but embrace our disputes. --Profero 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't exactly the place for this type of comment...but we appreciate nonetheless!--HereToHelp 23:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good! 

message: The long plaintext url in the codesample at Wikipedia:Tip of the day/November 4, 2006 is breaking the layout at Wikipedia:Community Portal#Departments. I'm unsure how to fix this, or reword it. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's okay now on larger screens, but causes some scrolling on smaller screens.  --Aude (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My TOTD edits didn't work for all screen sizes.  I reverted back to your version, but relocated TOTD on the community portal for today to the bottom of the page, full width.  It can be reverted back to normal tomorrow.  Or maybe someone else has a better solution? --Aude (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Screenshot of original problem added. It was worse with the PRE tag, but still causes (or would be) a lot of bunching in the left column. --Quiddity 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with today's tip 

message: Should Wiki assign editors for editing or semi-protect the United States general elections, 2006 election pages for November 7th, because vandals/trolls will most likely cause harm to the pages?  Should we assign frequent editors on specific pages to update results, or should we just wait until November 8th when the (hopefully uncontested) results come in? ---- Bearly541 talk 01:55, Sunday November 5, 2006 (UTC)
:If there is vandalism, a request to protect the page can be made at WP:RFPP. Regarding updates, it is best to just wait. Wikipedia is not a news source. —Centrx→talk • 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assigments for Mid-Term Election Pages 

message: Are there any rules requiring someone to provide evidence and logical reasoning for his position, especially if he keeps reverting an article?  If not, there should be.  At one of the articles I frequent, some people have pretty blatantly resorted to the broken record tactic: continually repeating that they are correct, without ever bothering to show how and why they are (they insist that they've already shown the evidence, but that I just ignore it; apparently, copying and pasting or pointing out the specific date when the supposed proof was given is too much for them).  Worse, they LOVE hiding behind other rules and functions here at Wikipedia, continuously tossing out "official" warnings telling me to stop reverting or be banned.  Today, one of them stooped to an even lower level.  Instead of just making up falsehoods about the topic of the article, or how they supposedly already provided proof, he has resorted to making up things about what I said at another internet forum.  I asked him twice to support this latest claim, and as usual, he hasn't done it.  I'm sure this is violating the spirit of Wiki, even if it's not violating any existing written rule (again, if a rule requiring evidence for claims doesn't exist already, it should be made).  Is there any way I can resolve this?  I'm not asking for anyone to get involved in the dispute; just for help pointing me towards an authority who can review the situation and force these guys to put up some evidence already, or stop reverting. JimRaynor55 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JimRaynor55 is distorting the situation, as *he* is the one who has continually brought about the reversions and edit warring on the article in question. Also, Raynor's allegation that I have "stooped to a new level" is baseless, as I was immediately able to point out the specific quote he made on another forum that I said he made. Almost the entirety of this editor's "contributions" to Wikipedia have been a continuous effort to remove references to a specific website or idea that he disagrees with. He has made no effort to work with the community, or to abide by consensus, even when other editors have tried to work and/or reason with him. He demands that his views be given precedence over all others, and constantly derides, belittles, or insults the opinions or actions of those who disagree with him. He has been warned about 3RR, and constantly skirts on the edges of violating that rule. TheRealFennShysa 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So in other words, JimRaynor55 wants to get his way, even though (as he even admits) he's outnumbered. I think interested parties will find this post that he made on another forum most interesting, where in addition to some rather colorful language to describe those who disagree with him, he's also soliciting for help from other potential editors in turning the article more to his liking, which is highly inappropriate or unacceptable. MikeWazowski 07:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Rules Requiring Evidence to Back Up Your Claims? 

message: http://experts.about.com/e/a/as/assassin_(game).htm
This is nearly a complete copy of the same article on Wikipedia. Could someone research something about this? --RedKlonoa 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you have a look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. --Maxamegalon2000 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia information on another site? 

message: i was just wondering why the Community Bulletin Board is in the Template: namespace, as opposed to, say, Wikipedia: namespace? Mlm42 13:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:CBB is in the Template namespace because that is its purpose on the Community Portal. --Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 21:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBB template 

message: Had a look at the John S. McCain page; there was a references list (thanks), but somehow, the text following fn2 had gotten attached to the references, rather than included in the body. Can somebody fix it? (The correct text is in the edit section, just not showing up.)  Trekphiler 07:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCain again 

message: What about a WikiProtocols for scientific protocols??? Most scientists (like myself) would love to have a place to exchange scientific protocols and to discuss their optmization and nuances. Although there are a few sites dedicated to this none of them have the power and influence of the Wiki foundation. Waisberg 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is just for discussing the design/content of the Community Portal. A suggestion like this belongs at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks :) --Quiddity 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion of new Wiki Project 

message: Does anyone feels that there should be a general rule that all fa articles ought to be maintained? so many of them have now turned garbage thanks to "contributors" who can't write, can't think and has a big problem with npov. such a pity that, after so much sweat, the only way is down. 165.21.83.240 09:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who would enforce the rule? Anyway, all that'd need to be done to fix it is for someone to pull up a diff from the point at which the article was featured, and either do a full revert if every subsequent edit was garbage, or a small chunk of work checking the diff for improvements and removing the dross. Just a case of being bold. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal 

message: Idk if this post belongs here, but I couldn't find a better place on Wiki for it. We could benefit from a "suggestion box" page. Anyway, it is hard to locate where the change took place when reviewing a history of changes to articles. Can the changes be highlighted on the history page to make them more visible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.139.226.34 (talk • contribs) .
:Only by using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. And the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is essentially the suggestion box. :) --Quiddity 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for article histories 

message: Something seems to be wrong with this section for me, the section on the left seems to underlap the section on the right, making "[edit]" bits appear to be "[ed" and one line even appearing as 
Can you speak another language? There are articles that ne
translation into English. 
As it doesn't seem to be mentioned, I'm not sure if it's something wrong with my browser though. Could someone else check this? Akata 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't duplicate the problem, or see anything obviously wrong in the code. What browser/OS are you using? -Quiddity 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP SP2. If others aren't seeing it it could just be a problem in IE7 or just my setup. Also in Fay_D._Flourite#Magical_Ability the spoiler line appears to puncture the picture on the left. --Akata 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muahahaha. (And, why?!) The problem is (the manufacturer of) your browser. This (Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes#IE fixes) is why people hate IE. You'll have to ask at WP:VPT. --Quiddity 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help out 

message: I recently attempted to play some music on the Beta player, which was aqpparently inaccessible.  Why?
75.34.8.146 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The code for the beta player is hosted on the toolserver; unfortunately MySQL on that server isn't working, so it's returning errors, The developers know about the toolserver problems, but I don't know when they will be able to fix it – Gurch 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to fix it soon? – 75.34.8.146 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be working now – Gurch 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: I'm basically in the process of updating the list of WikiProjects, and find quite a few that are comparatively new and could benefit from new members. Rather a lot, actually. How many projects do you all think should be listed at any one time? I can always stagger the new project listings so that too many don't appear at once. Badbilltucker 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roughly matching the length of the "newsy" column on the right is visually appealing.  If you're up for managing the pull dates while you "catch up" the WikiProjects list, I'd suggest keeping it about the length it is now. :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many new projects is too many new projects? 

message: someone has put indecent images all over the New Mexico state page, please fix immediatley. I would, but I am new and don't know how to change pictures. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to put this here, but it's the only place I can find, but the matter is please fix the New Mexico page from the terrible vandalism! Bcody 00:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody inserted them into a template, which resulted in them showing up on a number of pages including that one. It was fixed fairly quickly – Gurch 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That sort of blatant vandalism, especially in a high-profile page or a template that's used in many pages, rarely lasts long even if it goes unreported on talk pages like this. *Dan T.* 17:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIX THE NEW MEXICO PAGE