Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 6

From Wikinfo

Merge templates

I suggest voiding all merge templates. If we need them, we can make ones for this site, so we know they won't be confused to Wikipedia's (something like a {{merge-wf}}). Since I'm here I've seen a dozen appearing where there really wasn't a reason for them to be (at least not here), some I accidentally imported myself. I think they're misleading and should go, like have the delete and others that are most suited to Wikipedia. --Anime addict 07:21, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Fred Talk 10:50, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Right, I fixed that. I moved the main 3, if there are any more, they should be moved too. I left a (not-too-small, my bad) explanation in the main formats, if anyone would ever wonder why they don't work, and showed to current functional templates, if they'll ever be needed. Anime addict 16:27, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Are we deleting imported templates? Can I safely delete this one? Template:Scientology Terryeo 13:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that template points to many interesting articles. Fred Talk 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaundiced

Hi Gang,

This seems to be the only page I can edit. When I login, WI switches me from the new default skin to some old canary-skinned thing with no command buttons on it anywhere, hence no way to change the skin! Watsup wi' dat!? Jon Awbrey 22:22, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Not sure, never heard of that before. Keep trying... Fred Talk 00:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Fred, it looks like the Jon Awbrey account has gone belly up in the bowl, so, as I mentioned in my email, I'll be using this alter ego account until further notice, most likely for good. Jonny Cache 18:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Good to see you under any name!--User:Taxwoman 05:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Preview of diff -- working?

When I try editing the current article on California Homemakers Association and click "Show differences," the difference-engine completely replaces the page being edited with a handful of templates. Preview changes works, but not show differences. I suspect this is not the intended behavior. Is there something broken with the templates? Whosasking 11:36, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes "Show changes" doesn't work at all. It compares the current page with a blank page. (Certain Boilerplate is added to any blank page as a default framework). Fred Talk 16:02, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Mediawiki 1.13

I will be updating the site to Mediawiki 1. 13, the latest version. Doubtless there will be problems and failures. We even risk the loss of the database, but I'll do my best to save everything, with a working character set. I may set up the database for all the Wikipedia languages, or not. Fred Talk 13:56, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Very nice work, I was a little nervous at the beginning when the errors began to come in, but I didn't bother you so you'd do what you have to. And from what I see, nothing's lost, no even the diacritics :-) Cheers for the new version! Anime addict 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I see the "Show changes" button works now too, it's very useful. What I'm bothered with, as I am on Wikipedia, is the (not written yet) text that is very unnecessary and confusing. I mean, it's common knowledge, it's been explained on the policies, that red is unexistent page and blue it one written. If that could be removed, it'd be great. If not, it works like this too, I guess. Anime addict 23:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are now running on 1.13. I'm sure there are some problems remaining; look around, try things out... I'm not sure what your concern is with red links. You might elaborate. Fred Talk 00:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this, anyway it's just an aesthetic thing, nothing special. I've tried some things, and it's much better than before, most of the templates from Wikipedia can now be imported without any problems. I'm really glad that articles in other languages didn't become broken/unreadable. The only problem is that once in a while, an error about database something appears. Hope it'll be fixed over time. Anime addict 16:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue about that error message, a new one. Fred Talk 16:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This one, it appears from time to time, although rarer in the last hours. Anime addict 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This error appears more and more often lately... Anime addict 12:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats about having successfully moved on to the new version, Fred. I too have encountered an error or two but generally things are working with my up to date Firefox browser. Terryeo 14:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Section 0

Hey, I didn't know about this option since a few days ago, but it would come very in handy, I think. I first saw it at RationalWiki (on the far up, right next to the edit button) and remembered how annoying it is to edit just a word or a line in the first row of an article, and to have it all splattered before me (especially when it's big). Do you think you can integrate it into the system? Thanks, Anime addict 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Google result

I created a new wikinfo page for a particular subject a week ago, and was surprised to find that it's still not findable on a gogle search. Is there something particular I need to do to put it up for search-engines to display? Loki0115 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell us the name of the article, or put in the google searchwords something in the form of "your article's name site:wikinfo.org", where in stead of your article name you put what you say doesn't turn up. Oh, and don't use the commas either.

I'm pretty sure it will come up, but I'm sorry to say Wikinfo doesn't rank that good on google search words, and as such, the desired result will not appear unless in special conditions. On the good part, if your article has some specific words in it, it will turn up in searches you'd never expect. Anime addict 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Upload

The upload section does not work. It says something about Wikipedia. I've recovered the original link for whoever wants to upload something, and it's here. However, if I remember well, it worked when the new version was installed, anyway it needs fixed. Thanks. Anime addict 21:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The upper one works, but I haven't figured out how to get rid of the lower one yet. Fred Talk 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The deadlock bug

Wikipedia:User:Tim Starling made a special effort to resolve this problem which was affecting other users of the Wikimedia software. I am very grateful, and I hope you are too. Please remember that while we are not a "sister project" of Wikipedia, we owe a great deal to them and wish at all times to maintain friendly relations regardless of differences in editorial polity. Fred Talk 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the bug shows up at all, even very rarely, please notify me. Fred Talk 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed all of a sudden it disappeared. Yes, that's great that someone has been helpful over there. Much obliged! - Nhprman 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They even issued a new version of the software, 13.1.1, based on fixing that bug. Fred Talk 12:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:PopularPages

Special:PopularPages shows our most viewed pages. Getting those pages updated and fixed up is an appropriate priority. Updated information, images, templates, polishing, etc. Fred Talk 12:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages on this list should also receive attention. Fred Talk 17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make an extra effort.WHEELER 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking over some of them, I'm trying to update some that I can. I'll see on the second link if I have time. Anime addict 21:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Iceni External Link

Hi, I was just looking at the external link for Iceni Coins on the Iceni page and I couldn't get it to funtion properly. When I clicked it, it just refreshed the existing page. Is the page it links to still there?--AaronCarson 08:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The link: http://www.writer2001.com/cciwriter2001/BritishLists/Iceni.htm doesn't load. It may, or may not, be good. Fred Talk 08:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

What is the difference between WikiInfo and Wikipedia? Elassint 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference depends on you. What do you want to do here that you can't on Wikipedia? Fred Talk 01:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikinfo:Editorial policy, but there is much more to it. Fred Talk 01:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference?

Need you ask?

A TON!!

I write original, groundbreaking material and it is acceptable here and 16,601 people have been able to read it! What's the difference? We have a poet's corner where poets can leave their poetry for all to read! What's the difference? Articles are not crammed with contradictory elements. Articles are written from an SPOV. Then as many as want to can write another article from another perspective criticizing the original.

What does that Mean?

No Editorial Wars! Peace and Harmony. Viewpoints are allowed. There is no censorship, no forcing of everybody into a faux-consensus that takes a majority of information and deletes it! Like Wikipedia.

We here are Heads and Tails above Wikipedia. Most importantly is the insight of Fred Bauder, which is very sound epistemological science, that of writing an article from a SUBJECTIVE Point of view! That is very important. Knowledge on any subject must be from a cohesive objective point of view that is favourable to that subject. This is the policy here. Furthermore, there is room for the UNsubjective view of the subject material as well but that is encompassed in article by itself.

This is the importance and greatness of Wikinfo over Wikipedia. Wikinfo is about Knowledge. Wikipedia is about cramming everything into a consensus that really stunts the growth of knowledge.

Wikinfo, unlike Wikipedia, accepts one line entries. Wikinfo, unlike Wikipedia, will accept Business shameful promotion of themselves in an article. We don't care. Let them tell it like it is. It's knowledge.

Wikinfo also lets people work on their subject material with the least amount of interference. On Wikipedia, La Rouche and Scientologists are hounded off. If La Rouche or Scientologists want to write and present their subjects in a favourable light, no one here is going to stop them. They are free to do so. Others of the opposite persuasion are also allowed to write criticisms of those subjects BUT we don't tolerate interfering with one another and disrupting the creation of entries with constant edit wars.

What's the difference here at Wikinfo?

No edit wars.

Wikinfo is a superior product built on a better more sound epistemological basis than Wikipedia. WHEELER 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add to WHEELER's answer. Wikinfo is flexible, it is at least possible that innovative and new ways will be developed here, ways of presenting information that really make sense. The internet is new. Was of putting up information are still developing. Here and there you might find ways of presenting information that you really like. Then you could create articles in your area of knowledge, that really make sense. That present a color, or entertaining, or crisp, clear, easy to understand kind of article. I've tried to do this with some Scientology articles. Terryeo 01:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for a category name for these people

With what kind of category name should I categorize these people:

Charles Lindbergh. Henry Ford, Charles Coughlin, Elizabeth Dillling, William Pelley, Louis McFadden, Robert Edmondson‎, Henry H. Klein,

They were not strictly anti-semites, but decried Jewish influence in European and American affairs and the drive towards socialism. They attempted to maintain the old ways, especially here in America.

I don't know what to call these people.

Dr. Henry Makow has suggested these: AMERICAN NATIONALISTS. ((OR)) OPPONENTS OF GLOBALISM (DO not use isolationists)

What say you all?WHEELER 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion [Category:Critics of Jewish Infuence], [Category:Conspiratorial theorists], . Need a category that catches what these people were attempting to do.WHEELER 21:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think much of the viewpoint, but feel free to use a category that casts it in a positive light. Fred Talk 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Updates from Wikipedia

I just noticed that in this edit [1] some data was removed as well as added during the update from wikipedia. Is this standard? Somehow I thought we were supposed to fuse the updates with what was already there.--AaronCarson 21:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it depends from case to case, sometimes the old versions are outdated or too small and rarely contain original research, when they do, I (and I notice others too) try to merge as well as possible (I myself even have the habit of trying to include information from former edits on Wikipedia that were removed), but at some articles either it isn't worth it, or the users don't know/have time/think it's too tedious (I think that too sometimes) to do it.

In any case, when I make an original research insertion, I usually add to the article or to the talk page the request to be kept in case of eventual updates. Anime addict 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add I'm sometimes reluctant (and soon give up) on updating an old page with new information from Wikipedia, for the reasons above (usually when the quantity of the information is roughly the same, yet it differs in some other way, sometimes keeping the same idea or changing it with different ways of putting it). I notice this problem is pretty delicate, but so is a conclusion... Anime addict 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Anime addict. Hmm, so what you're saying is, it's at the discretion of the editor, which is cool, however the bit about having to leave a note on the article's talk page to preserve content against future updates worries me. To be honest I don't think we should have to do that here at Wikinfo. It's one thing to use Wikipedia as a source for more information, but I'm quite keen to maintain our distinction as well. Needless to say, many of the "updates" on Wikipedia have to do with their editorial policy as well, and are heavily influence by the need to avoid O.R.. To me there seems very little point in having the same information in two places on the internet, especial in light of Wikinfo's inferior searchability. That said, I hear what you're saying about it being a delicate problem, you've shed some light on the issue for me. I'm still a little concerned though.AaronCarson 23:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I only meant leaving notes like "Please don't update by just copy-pasting the current version of the Wikipedia article, cause there's some original research here that someone went to the trouble of doing". See Talk page of 1999. That's in no way a discouragement in the sense of "this is my personal page, don't update it", just a request for not overwriting with blatant copy-paste.

But this is besides the problem, it's just a temporary solution to those pages that really shouldn't be completely replaced when someone's making an update from Wikipedia. --Anime addict 23:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anime addict, by the way, I appreciate your concientiousness in going through some of the deleted content over at Wikipedia. Well do I know what a bother it is.

Interestingly, this is exactly, pretty much my problem/challenge with the Herbert Hoover entry just a minute or two ago.

For one, the short article here is not badly written, and seems to be based on some original research. The current piece on Wikipedia Herbert Hoover is much more in depth but also includes sections (which are being disputed and probably in danger of deletion or massive rewriting there) that are very critical of Hoover, which would prbably need to go into the "criticism of" section while here.

So, what to do, try to incoporate sections from the Wikipedia into the current piece, just import the entire piece, destroying the original here... or what? Thinking of getting the "criticism" on over here before it vanishes, onto a "criticism of Herbert Hoover" page and leaving the main article up for some discussion here as to how to handle it.Will Dockery 12:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that replacing Wikinfo content with Wikipedian updated content should be totally dissalowed, unless the Wikinfo content is either redundant, or nonsensical. Content from Wikipedia should only be added IN ADDITION to the existing content over here. I realise that this can be tedious, but I feel that Wikinfo's uniqueness must be given priority. That said, I'm not quite sure what Fred's feeling is on this, and I'm still hoping for a word from him on this question. Thanks for your work Will, it sounds like you're doing well. Let me know if you need any assistance or run into any hurdles. --AaronCarson 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikinfo should be so strict, even at the price of loosing some of the uniqueness. Although I agree with what you say, I tend to observe that articles imported 1-2 years ago here have substantially changed in Wikipedia, and for the better. See the two definition fields on Phenomena, if you were an expert looking for it on the internet, which would you consider better? Sure, merging is an option, but let's not scare the users into "You have to stay 5-10 hours to merge the two articles if you want to update it", I sure know it takes me at least that much when I try taking all the available information from Wikipedia, the history and the internet and try to put it together. I can't really agree with updating from Wikipedia being a backwards technology here, except in rare cases where articles are censored there because they're not neutral in some eyes.

Will, I think all should be in your hands, if you have time to merge and move to criticism page what you think is worth it, you should do it by all means. I've often done it on articles I was interested, or which I thought deserved better (on technology recently). Anime addict 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say, that I'm not worried about you guys. It seems to me you've been going about the updating process quite conscientiously. I was more thinking about some sort of possible guidlines for the future. My experiences at Wikipedia led me here, for the reason that I found that cases of censorship there were not so very rare. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that many of the editors on Wikinfo are quite likely former Wikipedians who came here after experiencing some frustration with editorial policy at Wikipedia. I guess I'm just wondering what the prime directive is behind the updates from Wikipedia. What you said hits home, because I also don't want Wikinfo to become too strict, nor do I want to scare off potential editors with too many rules. But for example, if someone has to spend 5 to 10 hours researching an update, that seems to suggest to me, that there's a lot of different content in both versions, (unlike the Phenomena article), which probably needs going over. I too would balk at such a thing, but then it's easy for me to say, because I never update. My main point is, it's fine now, the way it's going, but down the road, new editors could get over-excited and start updating without really knowing the topics, and then washing their hands of the thing. I'm all for embracing Wikipedia as a source of information, but I just really don't want to be its dingleberry (a sort of unnecessary unpleasant thing that trails behind its projenitor). Sorry that's a rude joke. Now when I talk about a guidline, I'm not talking about a rule. Just a sort of general something to shoot for that we can make available to new editors about updating, perhaps based somewhat on yours and Will's style of editing.--AaronCarson 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you edit an article, including importing an updated version from Wikipedia, it should improve the article. If someone has gone to a lot of work on Wikinfo improving an article it is inappropriate to simply substitute an update from Wikipedia. However, It is wise to first update an article, from Wikipedia, before you start doing a lot of work on it. It saves a lot of work. And yes, it is assumed most editors are also Wikipedia editors. Fred Talk 22:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good starting point, I presume you mean taking the structure, templates, images etc from Wikipedia, and then completing them with the info from the old article here (or removing CPOV, depending on the case). I guess a minor policy starting with this wouldn't hurt, or this great advice will just die buried in the Village pump's archives. Anime addict 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have agreement, but feel free to write a policy page. Fred Talk 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's my place, nor do I have a good idea about what name or content to give it. --Anime addict 02:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I really think it should be you who gives the outlines for policy Fred. The first thing you said about improving the article could certainly be useful. For my part, I'm still not convinced of the point of the updates though. Presumably Wikipedia will be updating itself indefinitely. Are we supposed to go on updating with it? How far do we take it? I can understand the importing, because that's filling a lack, but it seems to me that with each update, we are tailoring ourselves back to the way wikipedia does things, especially as they are getting more and more strict in their policies. I'd also caution against using too much of Wikipedia's imagery. People's first impression of an article is the image, quite often, and if the first image they see is the same one from Wikipedia then the articles looses a little impact and may even lead people to believe that it's the same article copied over. My point is, we have to give people a reason to come to Wikinfo for information instead of or in addition to Wikipedia. For that, I think contrast is important. I mean, obviously not to the point of absurdity, but where possible.AaronCarson 02:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the goal of Wikinfo being being at least somewhat unique, or an alternative to, Wikipedia, such as importing parts of articles that were delted for whatever reason, or something as simple as using different photos or images than the Wikipedia (and better ones, sometimes, since the "rules" are not as tight here on photos, et cetera). This is what I did with the Barbara Eden entry, which I imported as is from 'pedia. And much as I'd /rather/ have written the article myself, I'd never have time to research and rewrite all the pieces such as this, which, as Fred writes, are basically information that would pretty much turn out the same, anyhow. Which brings me to my favorite Wikinfo entries... those that Wikinfo doesn't have an article on at all, either because nobody's gotten to them yet, or they've declared not notable enough. I tried something I found interesting recently, which as far as I know hasn't been done much, if at all: I imported an article I researched and wrote here over to Wikipedia, and noted the fact in the Summary. So far, all this is still up over there. Will Dockery 07:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Will, like I said before, I think you and Anime addict have been doing a great job with the updates, and I can well appreciate how tricky it can be. I think our articles are safe in your hands. --AaronCarson 11:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some things are just facts and no reason not to have them. However, Wikipedia's conservatism is dismal. I think I'll write an article about the current economic crisis and call it a Depression (economics). Fred Talk 05:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and you do make me laugh Fred.AaronCarson 11:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Login problem

I've seen Veecort's problem and I thought I should bring into atention my own. It may or may not be related to his, and if it is it may be from a cookie stand-of. I don't think it's from my browser, at least not that often, I've experienced only rarely the same on Wikipedia. The problem is, when I submit something, the page gets stuck at a permanent "this page is loading" loop, and trying to open any other page after that does the same. The only way to fix this for me is deleting the cookies on Wikinfo and re-logging in. This wouldn't be a bother if it happened once in a while, but in the last couple of days it happened quite often (5-10 times a day), and tonight again, so I'm writing after something like this. Hope the bug gets fixed soon. Anime addict 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that is. It is progress to know that there is a way around it though. I had assumed it was just an overloaded server at ibiblio. Fred Talk 22:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

First time it happened to me I thought I was banned on Wikipedia, lol. Then I tried on a different browser and it worked, and it got me thinking.

Well, I'm glad I could shed some light on this, it might even be what you said, although I doubt it, because when I hit submit and the page does not load anymore, the information IS sent and when I manage to get back, I DO see it on the recent changes page. --Anime addict 01:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing Oddity

I'm also having a small problem. When I click "edit" I only get eleven buttons. I seem to remember there were more before. It's been like this for about half a year, and I forgot to mention it before, because it didn't really impede my work too badly but, it's why I never add references. There's no button and I'm too lazy to type in the code.--AaronCarson 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

11 buttons are all we ever had but look down at the bottom. Fred Talk 22:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, you'd think I'd have noticed that considering how long I've been here. "Half a year"? Lets just forget this ever happened.

Questions regarding Wikinfo (and Wikipedia too) and a legal question.

I am sure these questions will display my complete ignorance of editing Wikinfo. I am guessing there is info somewhere on this site that I need to read.

1) Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding linking to Wikinfo? If I put a link to an article on Wikinfo into the "External Links" section of an article on Wikipedia and another editor says it doesn't belong, what are the chances the link will stay by consensus? What if I link to multiple articles from within the same Wikipedia article? For instance. Within the External Links section of the article called "ITT Technical Institute" I put links to articles on Wikinfo called " Comprehensive List of Lawsuits, Investigations, and Federal Raids Involving ITT Technical Institute" and "Criticisms of and Controversies Involving ITT Educational Institute"

They have a policy discouraging external links to anywhere. However a link to unique material that is hosted on Wikinfo might be acceptable. Fred Talk 13:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

2) What is to stop an ITT Tech employee from making edits to articles that I create? I mean if there is really unlimited POV forking then I should be able to have absolute control over who modifies my articles right? If there is really unlimited POV forking then the only time two Wikinfoans (_{Wikinfians?, Wikinfoites?, Wikinfoers?, Wikinfoese?, Wikinfese?}) cannot agree to disagree is when they both want the same exact title for their articles. (Also, it seems that links to certain articles obviously belong in certain related articles, but I hope any two Wikinfo editors could come to their own agreement on that.)

An ITT Tech employee would be violating our rules about point of view if they did so. The public relations department of ITT Tech, or anyone, is welcome to create an article, ITT Tech, which portrays ITT Tech as wonderful in every aspect, but not to remove true information from articles critical of ITT Tech. We have never settled on a suitable handle for Wikinfo editors, just use that, "Wikinfo editors". All related articles should be linked, at the top of the page, so ITT Tech should have Criticism of ITT Tech at the top of the page and vice versa. Fred Talk 13:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

3) Is it true that if I can prove that what I am saying (expressly stating or implying to be factual) is in fact true, then I cannot be found guilty of defamation, vilification, slander, and/nor libel by any court within the USA? (I know that I follow any advice at my own risk and that I should consult a real lawyer in "the real world".) Veecort 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have incontrovertible evidence supporting your statements and lose a libel case in an unfriendly court and before an unfriendly jury. You may be ruined financially by legal proceedings. However, as a general statement, truth is a defense to libel. There are circumstances where it is not a defense to slander, which is verbal abuse or gossip. Libel is untrue published defamation. Fred Talk 13:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have imported the Wikipedia article, ITT Technical Institute, which is a good example of a troubled Wikipedia article. To bring it up to Wikinfo standards the current content should be split into positive and critical articles, each of which, respectively, strongly sets forth the virtues and faults of ITT Tech. Fred Talk 14:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Vital articles Fred Talk 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

General Relativity is Bogus

In 1997 I discussed General Relativity in Katie Bloom's in San Jose, while using the a.k.a. Lucifer. It had occurred to me that the Principle of Equivalence, which is axiomatic to the theory, is invalid. One can tell the difference between an accelerated frame of reference and a gravitational field because the field has a gradient within Einstein's elevator. Since one cannot reason validly from a falsehood, the General Theory of Relativity is specious. It is good indeed that Albert got his Nobel for other work. James Patrick McGrath 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Any Imaginary Mathematics is Invalid

Since one cannot reason from a falsehood or a non-existent, any talk of imaginary or complex numbers based on the illusory square root of minus one, is patently absurd, and mathematicians who spout nonsense about the beauty of self-consistent systems should consult a psychiatrist about their delusional paradigm. James Patrick McGrath 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind me saying this, but shouldn't you put these ideas in an article? The village pump isn't exactly the place where they'll get too much attention as theories, especially from search engines. --Anime addict 16:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Oddity

Does this edit [2] display strangly for anyone else? I can't tell if it's something with my browser, or something that occured in the edit itself. It's the only one in the series that dispays this way. AaronCarson 19:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally weird Fred Talk 19:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because the article is so huge and the server/soft can't handle it. --Anime addict 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've made some diggings and trials with images lately, seems you can redirect the name from an image to another if there wasn't any uploaded in the first. It's a little tricky, but it works. In stead of uploading one, you can just go to http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Image:Example.jpg and place the redirect there for your new image title, let's say [[Image:Example1.jpg]]. It also works on crossover extensions (for example from svg to png), so it might have a future for our SVG problem here. I've tested these myself with plenty of succes, I might say. I'm even curious to wonder why Wikipedia hasn't thought about this before (or I should count my Christmas blessings it didn't, cause we'd have another way for the censorship there to flaurish through media).

But all in all, I hope it'll be used for good and productive purposes, that's why I decided to share the information here. --Anime addict 03:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard to use as more than half of the svg images do work. I'm pretty sure our software is not handling svg images correctly, but have no clue as to how to fix it. Fred Talk 03:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all the members of Wikinfo and a Happy Hanukah to you Fred. I wish you all a good time this season and a Happy New Year. Wishing Wikinfo prosperity, influence and growth for 2009. Praying for her success.WHEELER 00:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wheeler; although I'm not Jewish; Happy Holidays! is a nice sentiment. Fred Talk 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me too - to you too! --Anime addict 01:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, about that Fred. Duly noted. But Happy Holidays one and all.WHEELER 23:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a general policy of wishing people "due seasonal greetings" for all notable major religious festivities. Jackiespeel 17:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Portal templates

I'm pretty sure 99% of the Portal templates on Wikipedia do not and will never exist here. Suggest voiding, eventually making a custume one for Wikinfo with a link to it in the original... --Anime addict 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That or redirecting them automatically to Wikipedia. --Anime addict 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never been sure about that. It is quite possible if we had more people editing that they would serve. Fred Talk 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can someone teach me how to format a disambiguation page? At this page Saturn (disambiguation) I wanted to place the second article under the same name but I don't know how to redirect to a different page of the same name. --AaronCarson 14:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I imported the page from Wikipedia (It has the car, too). I'm not sure what you wanted to do. Fred Talk 15:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You might check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation Fred Talk 15:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can't import it at Wikinfo:Disambiguation. Fred Talk 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, already did. Fred Talk 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fred that helps. I've got a lot of reading to do!--AaronCarson 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I got to thinking about this subject, looking at word sense and word sense disambiguation and am considering what we might do to fully elaborate this aspect of classification, perhaps by making any simple word such as table a disambiguation page as a matter of course and any actual article expressing a particular word sense in the form table (furniture) or table (parliamentary procedure). Fred Talk 22:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hy guys, sorry I wasn't too much around lately, Holiday spirit and such ;) Since it's almost New Year here in Romania, I'd like to wish all my fellow wikinfo editors (and anyone else lurking about :P) a Happy New Year and a greater one at that! --Anime addict 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to have an opportunity to appreciate the fellow editors of Wikinfo, even if we are not necessarily from the same religion. Happy holidays to all. AaronCarson 22:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

�

It is possible to search for � Doing so exposes articles which have been corrupted: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=�&fulltext=Search Fred Talk 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Writer's Corner

Is it allowed for me to upload an illustration to go with my story? Something I created myself?AaronCarson 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Fred Talk 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Database error

If you go to http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php?namespace=8&hideminor=0&title=Special%3ARecentChanges , you get the following error:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "SpecialRecentChanges::doMainQuery". MySQL returned error "1176: Key 'new_name_timestamp' doesn't exist in table 'recentchanges' (mysql.ibiblio.org)". Maximillion Pegasus 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you try any namespace besides (Main), you get the error. Maximillion Pegasus 01:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to upgrade soon. That might fix it. Fred Talk 02:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chapstick lesbian

Seems rather derogatory and something we might not want around here. Advocating deletion per human cockfight precedent. --Anime addict 19:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, although there's a precedent for removing articles like this, there is something in Wikinfo:Policy under "Background" which I think is pertinent here. Of course Wikinfo is an ever evolving project, and is quite fluid in nature, so nothings written in stone. AaronCarson 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, this term is in use in the lesbian community. It is a synonym for soft butch. Fred Talk 13:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Import templates

There are a several templates, Template:Wiki, Template:Wikia, and Template:Common which can be used at the bottom of imported pages and images. If the title of the article has been changed by importing it to a new title use this coding: {{Common|title on Wikimedia Commons}}. They are in Category:Import templates. Template:Wikifrom, a piece of my inept amateur coding has been deprecated and now redirects to Template:Wiki. I got this coding from Wikia where the original Template:Wikipedia was developed. Fred Talk 14:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to create some templates this week especially for the creation of articles. Something like this article was written by (X) and proof readed by (X). Something along them lines. Could I have your help on this one? Gideon‑ X-

Such templates would only be acceptable for Wikinfo:Signed articles. Fred Talk 14:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikinfo is running slow isn't it? I wonder why it's running so slow? I know about signed articles and will give it some thought. Still, I think signing articles should be acceptable when it is protected to show its status. Thank you. Gideon‑ X-

Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 1, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 2, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 3, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 4, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 5, Wikinfo:Village pump/Archive 6

This is the place to discuss anything you wish, ask questions on any topic or introduce yourself. Please make sure you sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end. Click here to start a new discussion

Owl of Wisdom

1 Merge templates
2 Jaundiced
3 Preview of diff -- working?
4 Mediawiki 1.13
5 Section 0
6 Google result
7 Upload
8 The deadlock bug
9 Special:PopularPages
10 Iceni External Link
11 Question
12 Suggestion for a category name for these people
13 Updates from Wikipedia
14 Login problem
15 Editing Oddity
16 Questions regarding Wikinfo (and Wikipedia too) and a legal question.
17 Wikipedia:Vital articles
18 General Relativity is Bogus
19 Any Imaginary Mathematics is Invalid
20 Another Oddity
21 Images
22 Merry Christmas
23 Portal templates
24 Help
25 Happy New Year!
26 �
27 Writer's Corner
28 Database error
29 Chapstick lesbian
30 Import templates
31 Merge templates
32 Jaundiced
33 Preview of diff -- working?
34 Mediawiki 1.13
35 Section 0
36 Google result
37 Upload
38 The deadlock bug
39 Special:PopularPages
40 Iceni External Link
41 Question
42 Suggestion for a category name for these people
43 Updates from Wikipedia
44 Login problem
45 Editing Oddity
46 Questions regarding Wikinfo (and Wikipedia too) and a legal question.
47 Wikipedia:Vital articles
48 General Relativity is Bogus
49 Any Imaginary Mathematics is Invalid
50 Another Oddity