Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 29 July 2023

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

• WT:VPP

Section sizes in Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) Section size for Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) (23 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,085 2,085 LLM/chatbot comments in discussions 1,232 212,316 opening comments 28,702 28,702 section break 1 12,668 12,668 section break 2 17,190 17,190 section break 3 15,563 15,563 section break 4 89,296 89,296 Section break 5 44,676 44,676 Alternate proposal 2,989 2,989 Should first language be included in the infobox for historical figures? 17,737 17,737 Restrict new users from crosswiki uploading files to Commons 9,771 9,771 Question(s) stemming from undiscussed move 12,070 12,070 CSD A12. Substantially written using a large language model, with hallucinated information or fictitious references 8,212 8,212 AFD clarification 7,059 7,059 RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation 60,872 76,285 Discussion 15,413 15,413 Audio-video guidance 1,724 1,724 Policy proposal: Establishment of research groups to edit articles 5,210 10,142 Modified proposal: Research panels between editors and greater article protections 4,932 4,932 Is the "above 8000 words = split" an absolute rule? 15,411 15,411 Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles 3,516 3,516 I (+other people) co-authored a draft article, but its submission was declined 887 887 Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? 2,060 2,060 Total 379,275 379,275

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Threats to Independence of Misplaced Pages call for a fundraiser?

Who is it that has made, "threats," to the 💕's independence? Who or what might that threat be? Misplaced Pages has gone to an open, blind fundraiser to defend against threats mentioned, but no threat is known and no threat is named. As with political donations, readers should know all the facts which can be learned before offering donations blindly, is that not right? Knowledge is power, a wise man once said. This is a truth. Please make plain the threats so we might give, knowingly. Thank you in advance. 72.24.88.217 (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This should be in the WMF section, it is not an en.wp policy matter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

We here at Misplaced Pages are unaware of any such threats. The fundraiser is for the Wikimedia Foundation, not for Misplaced Pages. You'll have to ask them, not us. —Kusma (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Some say the WMF is threatening Misplaced Pages's independence, but that's probably not what the banners (posted by the WMF) are referring to. ;) Anomie⚔ 11:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Timeline articles verb tense

Timeline articles (millennium, century, decade, year, and month) are written in different verb tenses. Most if not all millennium, century, decade and year articles are in the present tense, but some month articles are in the past tense. Please discuss at Misplaced Pages talk:Timeline standards#Past vs Present tense again, not here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Assistance with Conflict of Interest and Reverted Edits on My Article

Hello experienced editors,

I am reaching out for your guidance and assistance regarding a situation I am facing while trying to update the article about myself, Peter Levashov. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page and have been careful to only add well-sourced and accurate information to the article.

However, a politically engaged editor, @HouseOfChange, has been reverting all my edits, despite my efforts to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and work collaboratively. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review the situation and provide guidance on how to proceed or offer a neutral perspective on the edits I have made.

Here is the link to the diff of the reverted changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peter_Levashov&diff=prev&oldid=1151099906

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to receiving your valuable insights and advice.

Best regards,Levashov.peter (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I see it has been proposed that the biography be deleted. The rationale for deletion seems valid, and I suspect this may be the best way to deal with the situation. If, however, we are going to keep the biography, there are clearly issues with it that need remedying, but I think it unlikely we are going to include links to your website or other material concerning your recent activities: we base articles content on what third parties have to say about a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello AndyTheGrump,

Thank you for your guidance on the proper way to suggest changes to my Misplaced Pages article. I have followed your advice and submitted several edit requests in the "Talk" section of my page, ensuring that they are based on reliable, unconnected sources and maintain neutrality.

I kindly ask you to review these suggestions and consider implementing them in the article. Your attention and assistance in maintaining the integrity of the content are greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Levashov.peter (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarification of Policy vs. Other

This close in AfD was interesting: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of heraldic charges. There are many, including myself, who quote WP's without knowing which are policy and which are guidelines (or essays etc.). Why not have a different naming system to differentiate between then, such as WPP: (for policy), WPG: (for guidance), and WPE (for essays)? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That would require creating new namespaces. In principle I'm not against it, but I don't think it will change anything; we'll just have a redirect from WP:V to WPP:V, and most would continue using WP:V because that is what they are used to. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, but it feels like not being able to separate a policy from other types of WP:'s should be a big deal? I'm not sure everybody knows the difference (myself included). Maybe we could do it by changing the colors? 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone really knows the difference; the best we have is WP:POLCON. The difference between the manual of style vs. guidelines is even worse defined.

What do you mean by changing the color? BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Eh, the MoS is a guideline; it's why it has a guideline template at the top of it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

And I do think that knowing the difference is of value. By color, I mean that when some links to a policy (i.e. WP:V), that it would come up as say a green-link (instead of a blue link)? That might might be a quick improvement? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing the link colours is probably a bad idea. Changing the colour of the box a the top of the page ({{Policy}}, {{MoS guideline}}) might be worth considering. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on the first part; various user scripts and user CSS already do all kinds of link-coloration jobs (redirects in green, links to disambiguation pages in orange, etc.), and people are doing this stuff on a very individual basis. The only thing they've ever had to work around is blue for a link to an article, purple for same but already visited, and red for link to missing page. Introducing more would break all the existing customization stuff. On the latter point, I'm skeptical this is a good idea, because various things that had a guideline tag slapped on them by a wikiproject probably should instead have {{WikiProject advice}} (a subclass of essay), because they only reflect a "local consensus" of a small number of editors; meanwhile, there are various essays that have the overwhelming support of the community (WP:BRD, WP:ROPE, etc.), but remains essays because they are not written as guidelines but in essay style. For a system like this proposal to work, pretty much every WP:-namespace page would have to be carefully evaluated for whether it is classified correctly, and some would need to be completely rewritten to change classification categories to reflect their actual level of community consensus buy-in. I think it's just going to remain a fact of wikilife that our documentation structure is complex and not perfectly consistent, and has a learning curve. PS: Another issue is WP:IAR and similar concerns: there are plenty of times when the literal word of a particular policy is moderated in some particular, narrow way by principles laid out in a guideline or even an essay, but people would ignore such subtleties and just retreat to "my position wins because I cited a policy and you cited only a guideline and an essay" counterproductive thinking (not to mention that one's interpretation of the policy might be completely wrong). We already have too much of a habit of just citing a shortcut as if that explains everything, and we would not want to reinforce that bad habit with a new layer of imprimatur.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Why can't registered users edit using blocked IP addresses?

There are good reasons for disallowing anonymous users from editing through open proxies and web-hosted services, but blocking the IP addresses has the side effect of also locking out established logged-in users. This does not serve any purpose I can think of. Is it technically impossible to implement blocking IP addresses for anonymous editing while atill allowing editing by logged-in extended confirmed editors?  --Lambiam 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Just log in from a different location. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Realistically, no one is going to travel to a different location to edit; they'll just donate their time to some other cause instead. Allowing registered users to edit from blocked IP addresses is technically possible and is already done for many addresses and many accounts; see WP:IPBE. One problem with always doing it is that sneaky vandals can create new accounts. Certes (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that just log in from a different location is practically unrealistic for many users. Even I, a sort of nerd, cannot just simply log in from a different location when I'm mobile, and the methods that I could use without paying for a VPN are already blocked for various reasons. I once spent a week in a rural place where the one local ISP subnet was blocked and that was it for me; rather than deal with the process I just decided to not fix things that week. Yet Lambiam's question specifically suggests granting automatic exceptions to extended confirmed users, which IMO does present a decent enough barrier for many bad actors. Yes, I'm aware that some LTVs jump this hurdle, but if we took all the what if some hardcore vandal does this arguments to heart, nobody would be able to edit at all. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

True; allowing EC editors to be IP block exempt seems very useful and almost harmless. I'd be interested to hear from those more familiar with blocking why it's not done. Certes (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a weird place to have this discussion. Why it's done is simply the reason you've identified above: sockpuppets and banned users evade IP blocks and/or conceal their 'real' identity, either by using proxy IPs or (with IPBE) by using their own blocked IPs. I want to add that changing a location is not always practical, I get that, but sometimes just not using a proxy is a reasonable compromise, like if you're sat in your own home. At other times, IPBE might be appropriate. Other times the block may need re-visiting. -- zzuuzz 22:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

While all of that is true, it still doesn't address why extended confirmed users can't be automatically exempted. If we trust EC users enough to edit through EC protection, then why not through certain IP ranges? (And where would be a more appropriate place to discuss this? The implementation would be technical but it's still a policy issue IMO.) Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the talk page of the VPP project page. Like most talk pages, this type of talk page is more for talking about the page rather than talking about other things. You're welcome to move this discussion or start a new one on the policy page, as far as I'm concerned (you could even continue here and it won't bother me). To answer the question, we don't trust automatically trust every EC user with many things. -- zzuuzz 23:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, whoopsie regarding the talk page vs. the project page. Pinging Lambiam in case they want to move it there for wider visibility. At least for me, "we don't trust X with many things" feels like a policy version of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but I've given my thoughts on this issue and won't push any more. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

why extended confirmed users can't be automatically exempted We already have LTAs who game extended confirmed for the sole purpose of disrupting bluelocked articles. Making IPBE something that's granted automatically to EC editors would have impacts elsewhere as zzuuzz has implied.

That said, not all IP blocks are the same. For disruptive IPs we already distinguish between hard and soft blocks. As the blocking policy states, the most common type of IP block is a softblock, that prevents only anonymous editing while still allowing already created accounts to edit. Hardblocking, which prevents all edits except for IPBE editors and admins, are typically used for proxies, and colocation and webhosts, due to the higher risk of disruptive editing those services come with. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Can't creating new accounts be blocked while still allowing extended confirmed users to edit?  --Lambiam 22:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)