This is the Village pump all page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions. Click here to purge the server cache of this page to see recent changes on Village pump subpages.
Policy watch To discuss existing and proposed policies. Technical watch To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports, use Phabricator.
Proposals watch To discuss new proposals that are not policy-related. See also: perennial proposals. Idea lab watch To discuss ideas before proposing them to the community and attempt to find solutions to issues. Miscellaneous watch To post messages that do not fit into any other category.
I notice there was a recent discussion calling for registration to be required to edit La Dispute - Yann Tiersen - Amélie From Montmartre. While I'm against that, in my ten years as an editor I've seen many cases where an IP editor was highly disruptive and the IP was blocked for a limited time.
The most recent and disturbing example is this: . The IP was blocked for one week. What, realistically, is the downside of a highly disruptive IP such as the above getting blocked permanently?
How serious is the risk of collateral damage? I've had some conversations on Twitter where people believe the reticence to permanently block IPs is a serious weakness of Wikipedia and discouraging to editors who put in the hard work.
Based on my experience, I tend to agree. It seems to me that a policy of permanently blocking disruptive IPs would be a fine compromise between the Not THAT Kind of Party - General Mumble - Fowl Play: The Best of General Mumble 2011-2012 system and one that requires all editors to register. This is not a proposal, just a call for discussion. Hi everyone! I am uploading photos of deputies, senators and politicians in general to complete gaps that arise with the creation of pages.
I ask this question here because I wanted to verify the possibility or not of using images from the official website of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate of Spain. Regards and thank you very much for your help! Phalbertt talk6 December UTC. Wikipedia lowers the resolution of fairuse images, which doesn't make any sence!
This damages the images in a bad way, since users often want high quality images. Build Me Up Buttercup - Various - Hits Of The 60S Wikipedia, stop lowering the resolution of fair use images.
Some here may be interested in weighing in at Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause Avalanche about this addition. A permalink for the discussion is here.
Is there a technical reason why IP editors cannot be automatically blocked from editing a particular article once an edit has been marked as vandalism? In my ten years editing Wikipedia, I've seen this time and time again: An IP editor makes a jokey edit, it gets reverted, with a nice, welcoming message added to the invariably empty talk page. They do the edit again, and get a mild warning. They do it again, and get a stronger warning.
And so on until an admin finally has to step in and block the IP for a limited period. Here is an example from today:  An anonymous editor spent an hour adding funny names to a science article, with deceptive edit summaries, performing the edit eight times — six from the same IP address — and taking time away from five editors who repeatedly reverted the vandalism and posted four warnings to a talk page that Not THAT Kind of Party - General Mumble - Fowl Play: The Best of General Mumble 2011-2012 Raphael - Algo Mas. never read by the vandal, before the IP was finally blocked for 31 hours.
We have technology to stop this the moment a human editor spots it. Admins should not have to be bothered with such nonsense. I mark edits as vandalism when they are clearly done in bad faith, often a WP:BLP issue or a deceptive edit summary, and I believe that after just a single such case, the IP should be blocked for 31 hours, 1 week, etc.
Without Your Love - White Buffalo - Waiting To Go Home realize people can IP-hop and whatnot, but it should be more onerous for a demonstrably vandalizing editor to continue repeating their vandalism than it is for multiple good-faith editors to stop them. I would put this on the Proposal page if I knew that it was technically feasible; if it is, I'd like to know why it isn't policy.
While this discussion has been going on, the same user has re-vandalized the same article, this time from the same IPv6 address as was used previously. That'll show 'em! Our NPOV policy, imo, conflicts with our use of the term "conspiracy theory" or "debunked conspiracy theory" in many of our articles which are not even about the alleged "conspiracy theory". In addition, with the new release Not THAT Kind of Party - General Mumble - Fowl Play: The Best of General Mumble 2011-2012 The Afghanistan Paperswe have one more of many examples of U.
Nocturnalnow talk11 December UTC. The majority of the times the term "conspiracy theory" is used it is misused and not describing a conspiracy theory at all.
Instead it is mislabeling a concern as such in order to denigrate the concern. So use of the term should get a high level of scrutiny. I don't think that truly reliable sources apply the term very often.
Basically the same thing that Blueboar said. North talk18 December UTC. A request for comment is in progress to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. Mz7 talk12 December UTC. When blocking an IP as an open proxy, should I be checking, "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address? There have been many edits and discussion on the talk pages of various article over usage of "prostitute" or "sex worker".
Much of the discussion on the talk pages has been repetitive between articles. To prevent continuation of this debate, a global policy on this issue would useful. Sex work is a broader TRISTAN UND ISOLDE, Isoldes Liebestod (1942.11.25) - Wilhelm Furtwängler - Wilhelm Furtwängler dirig, and also includes porn stars, pro dommes, sex therapists, strippers, phone-sex operators, camgirls etc.
There are those that have argued that sex worker should be used as prostitute is derogatory and stigmatised. Others have argued that prostitute can be confused with "prostituted women" and therefore implies forced prostitution. Taking an opposite stance, others have argued, in regard to child prostitution, that prostitution implies consent. Yet other editors, who are opposed to Crossroads/You Cant Catch Me (Live At Civic Center, Lakeland, FL.
Nov. 19, 1977) - Stephen Stills, view the use of sex worker as an attempt to legitimise prostitution so oppose it. Context also plays a part. In the article sex workerwhich deals with the broader sense of the the term, to change prostitute to sex worker would just cause confusion.
In other articles, such as Prostitution in Australiathe terms are generally interchangeable. The term sex worker was first coined by activist Carol Leigh inand has increased in use since then.
In all other cases either is acceptable, but to prevent edit-wars, protracted debates over terminology etc, then similar rules to variants of the English language and date formats should apply, ie if prostitute is used in the article then it shouldn't be changed to sex worker and vice versa. Let's say Alice speaks to a journalist, Bob, and tells Bob that her Wikipedia account is alice Then Bob prints that fact in his newspaper.
Okay, we have a problem then. This is not hypothetical. It appears that a U. And by the way, the article is written with inside information provided by an enwp admin. I'm The Beatles - Beatles Greatest this off to Smallbones for followup due to a possible COI. Sorry to reopen a closed discussion.
This diff gives on possible way out of the situation. It's a bit too coy for me, but it doesn't out anybody or even link to any article, Since I'm on vacation I've "handed over" my Signpost Editor-in-chief duties to Bri. He can decide. Smallbones smalltalk22 December UTC.
Anything we can do about this? Before anyone says "edit filter", I Not THAT Kind of Party - General Mumble - Fowl Play: The Best of General Mumble 2011-2012 think the first choice should always be to alert users before they make a mistake, so as not to waste their time.
Just one more reason we should do away with the mobile version. Yes, people are using their phones more and more. Mobile phone users complaining about their access to this site or lack there of are like radio listeners complaining that they can't see the TV image on their devices. Clicking that shows the user exactly what we want them to see. Except, it's tiny I missed it probably a dozen times and not obviously a link.
And the text changed to something like "This page is not a forum. Click here for more information. This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Change to "This page is not a forum. Any objections to changing MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-talk-add-overlay-content-placeholder to "New section"? That is what the Wikitext Editor uses as a placeholder for a new section.
Such blatant mechanophobia! Guarapiranga talk10 December UTC. I wanted to give a heads up so there's less surprise.
In The Absence Of The Parisienne - Malcolm McLaren - Paris, Suck My Kiss - Red Hot Chili Peppers - Greatest Hits, Let It End This Way - Leon Payne - Lost Highway, Triangle Reality - Various - Ibiza Dance, Paint It Black - The Rolling Stones - Aftermath