-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni wrote: That would take weeks, and by then the vote-stackers have long gotten away with it. And I don't think vote-stacking is too subjective. If you see someone recruiting votes, deal with them. It's pretty simple. As an update to the situation, the two users I blocked have been unblocked, but hopefully they are not going to keep on vote-stacking. Meanwhile, a third user has already started vote-stacking the DRV so I blocked him ... I imagine the same admin is going to revert me on that too, though. This is getting ridiculous. Our very system of how we make decisions is under attack and I'm trying to do something about it and meeting resistance. - -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys") ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~

I'd think this counts as a disruption of the normal workings of afd and is blockable on those grounds. Isn't this exactly why we were so concerned about userboxes - to prevent this sort of thing from happening?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni wrote: Well, specifically, a list of all of the people who had voted Delete in the previous vote. That user made no attempt to notify any of the Keep voters. It's this kind of selective voting recruitment (aka vote-stacking) that is so harmful to Wikipedia. When I canceled that Afd it was leaning heavily towards Delete, but that was only because two Delete vote-stackers had been out campaigning heavily and there was only one Keep vote-stacker who had just begun operations. The end result would've just been another no consensus once both sides were "properly" marshaled. The kind of actions I'm describing here are pretty clearly disruptive and work against the policies we have in place for deciding issues. It's extremely harmful. Note that the ArbCom has already come out against vote-stacking, in one form or another, in three separate instances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastr… In the past many blocks have been issued to deal with these issues. Yet suddenly we're running into a lot of resistance from people who are saying it isn't explicitly listed in policy. Well, since policy is simply a written-down version of what happens in practice, we need to modify policy. The only single diehard policy is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and it's pretty clear that these vote-stacking campaigns I've been describing go against that ultimate goal of making the best encyclopedia we can. - -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys") ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: The problem is that some people (e.g. John Tex) are saying that the blocking shouldn't be allowed because it isn't explicitly mentioned in policy. I'm with you; we shouldn't have to codify something so obvious; but John Tex and others seem to want it, so we have to. - -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys") ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~

On 5/4/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys(a)gmail.com> wrote: And the problem with that is? Arbcom can to a large degree do what it likes. Votestacking is hard to define. If I post a notice to the rational skecpticism wikiproject about a AFD of some alt med article is that vote stacking? Wrong. NPOV is hard policy. Nah not really. They tend to nullify themselves quite effectively. -- geni

geni wrote: Now, now, geni, be nice. He is pointing to a very real problem. With you, I am not persuaded this his solution is the right one, but the problem is real, and you should not accuse him of attacking the way we make decisions when he is trying to defend it. -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

On 5/4/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Not going to happen. There is no way you are going to get 27 people who care enough to vote delete. With they way AFD is currenly set up any significant minority can have the articles they want kept kept in most cases. He could contact the other people who voted on the AFD. Most of them will be prepared to listen to reason. -- geni

G'day Phil B, I've already provided a link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Smith_%28games_programmer%29> Joffa Smith's article is nominated for deletion because his full name doesn't get many Google hits. We see a bunch of regrettable pile-on "nn d"-type comments, plus a weird (and bloody stupid) "delete, self-nom" (!). Then we get some experts appearing, one of which is an anon but who obviously knows what he's talking about, and they say "but he won the Nobel Prize, Anthony!" To this day I don't know the numerical tally. There's no reason why I shouldn't, it's a short discussion and it would be easy enough to count the bold words. If feeling adventurous, I could even write a script to do it. But *it doesn't matter*, so I've never got 'round to it. I suspect, however, that if we had a silly vote-counting sod attempt to close it, they may well be tempted to close it as a "delete" because of some irrelevant magic number (50%, 60%, 66%, 67%, 70%, 90%, whatever). Fortunately, our admins are *not*, in the main, silly vote-counting sods, and the Use Common Sense movement hasn't yet been wiped out. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.4/332 - Release Date: 4/05/2006

Phil Boswell wrote: It's old now, but I'm proud of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Shooting_Fish -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 05/05/06

On 5/7/06, Cheney Shill &lt;halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: This decision is on Deletion Review for a 14-4 decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_Apr… Peter

On 5/4/06, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: Then again, loving bridges, he may not find it in is heart to delete _any_ article about them that has sources. Which, to a certain extent, is fine with me, but it does have the potential to significantly change the whole "deletionism/inclusionism" balance. Imagine the same concept applied to Star Trek experts. "Tribble Rebellion of 2280? SPEEDY KEEP!" Topical AfD is not a bad idea as long as these subcommunities are as open as the general AfD, and the only process by which they distinguish themselves is one of self-selection. That is, my opinion on a topical AfD should not count less because I have not worked in that topical AfD before. Erik

On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller &lt;eloquence(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I don't see the problem? Wikipedia works because autonomous persons and communities can work on their areas of expertise without having to go layers of bureaucracy. Except for a few global rules; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not paper, it is those communities and their ability to work autonomously that is shaping Wikipedia. That work process scales very well and is the reason why Wikipedia contain millions of articles. Centralized processes (like AFD) does not scale very well at all. Therefore I think it makes sense to avoid centralized processes. The more decentralized, the less people involved, the more easy it is to form consensuses. So if there is a consensus among the group of Wikipedians working on Star Trek articles that "Tribble Rebellion of 2280" should be kept, then that is what should be done. I think it is perfectly clear that those who work in the topic area knows best what articles belong in it. The last thing THEY need is a centralized process involving clueless opinionated people interfering in their business. In theory yes. In practice, people are more likely to listen to someone who has credentials. -- mvh Björn

On 04/05/06, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: Wouldn't it be better for this guy to add a couple of sentences *to the article* explaining the significance of the bridge? Anyone can recognise that "3rd largest bridge in the county of Borkshire" is at least somewhat notable. All the claims that you make above should be made in the article, or at the very least in a related Wikiproject. I don't think it's reasonable to expect AfD voters to carry this kind of meta Wikipedia content in their heads - it ought to be recorded for it to count somewhere. And yes, I feel bad for disagreeing with you, Jimbo :) Steve

On 5/4/06, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: One possibility would be to work from the existing WikiProject infrastructure. They already function as the default gathering place for editors working in a particular subject area; why not simply allow them (within reason) to conduct their own deletion discussions? The major problem here has always been the fact that there's no barrier to creating new projects. We want _established_ communities of people working on a topic making these decisions; at the same time, merely deciding to create WikiProject Controversial Articles shouldn't automatically give someone the ability to control deletion discussions. The obvious suggestion would be to have some manner of community screening process that would determine whether a particular project was in decent enough shape to run a deletion forum responsibly; but there are probably other approaches that could work as well. Kirill Lokshin

On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher &lt;m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au&gt; wrote: With the recent explosive growth of article rating programs (as pushed by the WP:1.0 people), a number of projects are doing just that. (Not necessarily looking for things to delete in particular; but those tend to drop out naturally when going through articles to grade.) Kirill Lokshin

On 5/4/06, Guettarda &lt;guettarda(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: [[WP:WVWP]] should have pointers to most of them; off the top of my head, the Tropical cyclones, Military history, Chemistry, and Beatles WikiProjects are ones I've recently had experience with, but many of the more active projects have them at this point. Kirill Lokshin

On 5/4/06, Steve Block &lt;steve.block(a)myrealbox.com&gt; wrote: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WVWP for the exhaustive details, but briefly: 1. A group of people (WP:1.0 team) decided to pick out good articles for a potential hardcopy release of Wikipedia; one of the approaches they took was asking individual WikiProject to evaluate articles in their area and report on the suitable ones. 2. Simultaneously, one WikiProject (Chemistry, if I recall correctly) hit on the idea of automating this via a "worklist", where articles would get recorded with an accompanying grade. The grades eventually developed into a more-or-less standard system of Stub - Start - B-Class - A-Class - FA, although some groups have introduced variations into the system. 3. Other WikiProjects asked to evaluate articles (per point 1) began to create their own worklists (per point 2). Each WikiProject adopted its own system for assigning the grades, though, depending on its own needs. We're now seeing some prototype support for automatically constructing worklists from tags on article talk pages, which should make this sort of thing easier. Kirill Lokshin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jimmy Wales wrote: Can we at least get a policy on mass-spamming of user talk pages then? I'm willing to put up with a mass-spammed Rfa thanks, as that isn't trying to influence anything whatsoever, or Esperanza mailing lists or whatever. But a single user taking it upon themselves to identify a specific group of people and notifying them selectively about a consensus-seeking issue currently ongoing - that is wrong. Indeed! Consensus simply fails to work on certain global processes. Luckily we have ArbCom to deal with user conduct issues, otherwise trying to deal with some particular users would be unworkable. I like this. I was actually musing about AfdCom on #wikipedia-en-admins two days ago. Basically it'd be a Committee of trusted people who would decide on extremely contentious Afd situations. The way we have it right now, with dozens of people piling on from both sides, is untenable. The AfdCom members would be well-trusted Wikipedians who have an excellent grasp of article inclusion policy. You could even have an "evidence gathering" phase where experts (like the aforementioned bridge experts) have their say. This would be much better than the current situation which consists of a bunch of people yelling at each other and no one in particular, trying in vain to get their points made, when the vast majority of voters haven't really put much thought into the issue at all. As for the specifics of AfdCom, I think it should be small, lightweight, and fast. ArbCom is good for what it does, but we don't need a process that takes weeks during which a bad article could stay in limbo. My version of AfdCom would be made of five members, any three of which can close a matter on a given situation. The AfdCom members would be appointed, NOT elected. I don't even want to think of how messy a voting situation would be ... many, many votes would be based on members' past decisions on specific subject area Afds rather than an actual objective analysis of the merit of that person. Most Afds would run as normal, but there would be a special application process users could go through to bring an article to AfdCom. First, there would have to be a non-trivial number of people on both sides, and then AfdCom would have to decide whether to accept or reject the case, kind of like ArbCom. This also very handily eliminates any vote-stacking concerns. Any issue going to AfdCom is going to be decided on by a maximum of five people, and those people are not going to be subject to recruitment :-D See above :-D - -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys") ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~

On 04/05/06, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: It's funny that you see the problem with AfD and RfA as being their "globalness". With RfA at least, I see the reverse: the fact that a subcommunity ("regular RfA participants") has formed, with its own norms, culture, convetions and so forth. If you randomly selected any Wikipedian, pointed them at the policy for selecting admins, and asked them to vote on a given candidate, you would get a result very different to what happens at RfA. I've heard similar stories about AfD - that there is a small group that frequently votes, occasionally interrupted by vote stacking or interest from outside parties. Perhaps the real problem is that "locus of control" should not be self-selecting. The trouble is that the people who vote on RfA the most are the ones who *enjoy* voting on RfA, apparently because they (or some of them) enjoy exerting power over candidates, by making them jump through hoops. I don't want to propose an elected committee to do RfA's or AfD's. But do you agree that a) there exists a "locus of control" already, and that b) it is self-selecting? Steve

On 5/5/06, BJörn Lindqvist &lt;bjourne(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Again, replace Star Trek with Pokemon (my favourite punching bag, for no real reason). Would you really entrust Pokemon fans with deciding which Pokemon articles are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Surely your proposal simply leads to vastly greater inclusion rates. Summary: People who know nothing about a topic are more likely to vote delete, even for an arguably notable topic People who are experts on a topic are more likely to vote keep, even for a topic of little interest to the broader community Agree? Steve

On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell &lt;phil.boswell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I'm assuming, perhaps unfairly, that Pokemon voters will keep to vote anything related to Pokemon, good quality and well referenced or not. If they would actually behave like ideal model AfD voters, then this discussion is moot. Similarly, if you want to argue for the removal of notability as criteria for in Wikipedia, then that's a different discussion entirely. WP:OWN, there's no such thing as "my articles" :p Maybe they do, we don't have a foolproof method for detecting Pokémon fans. (what's more surprising is no one has yet objected to my merciless Pokemon-bashing) Steve

Philip Welch wrote: {{sofixit}}: rather than bitching that there are too many articles about something you don't like, try writing more articles about something you do. In the meantime, who's going to want to write new articles in an environment which is at times actively poisonous towards newbies? If you can get jumped with an AfD notice before you're finished writing a simple Pokemon article, who will want to invest the effort writing a complex article which will have "nn, delete" and "yah, boo, you're expertize meanz nothing to us, you elitist pig!!11!!" plastered over it before the virtual ink has dried? We need to move towards an environment which will nurture the current generation of Pokemon writers and help them mature into 19th-century-literature writers at their own pace, rather than drive them away to their own little Pokepedia and lose them forever. -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/We-need-a-policy-against-vote-stacking-t1553689.html#… Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Philip Welch wrote: I really don't understand why people have so many problems with Pokémon articles. If you're not interested, you don't have to read it. I'm not interested in the thousands of articles about random small towns, but I'm not saying they should be deleted. There's a bar for notability that Pokémon presumably meets. Each individual Pokémon is certainly verifiable from any number of sources. I agree with the other Phil ... don't let the Pokémon piss you off, just ignore it and focus on writing articles on other stuff you think is more important. - -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys") ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~

On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Every free internet forum has the same issue. Pokemon are massive. How many pokemon can you name? How many uk canals (my area) can you name? -- geni

On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: [[WP:1000]] would be the closest. The are various problems with trying to figure out the number of people who have contributed at least once. Perhaps but that isn't going to happen. The best we can hope for is that we don't have to worry about the quality of the pokemon articles too much. -- geni

On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 01:44 +0200, Steve Bennett wrote: Yes. Any suggestions how to achieve this? I don't think that "Delete most of the Pokemon articles" would help with this goal. Carl

On 5/6/06, Cheney Shill &lt;halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Strangely enough that idea sounds great. There are many people who are willing and able to develop articles. I am opposed to deletion simply because of its negative impact on people possibly staying on with wikipedia to do the massive number of editorial tasks that are needed by any large scale literature project. By keeping their interest in developing they may move from the "pop" pedia to the more focused "professional" looking pedia which has a spectrum of topics which have developed to the point where people can actually quote them. Right now I would NEVER suggest to anyone that they quote wikipedia in any sort of scholarly work. This is because of the huge lack of control over which articles are at a post-draft stage. By separating articles by maturity, it would be clear which articles have been verified enough to provide a sufficient level where they are able to be quoted. Of course, my rant above does not put any time limitations on the above. But I think that a decision about such issues as a lack of scholarly respect for the encyclopedia currently should be a factor in the time frame of any proposal. Peter

On 5/6/06, Matt Brown &lt;morven(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Why? I can show you accounts that could fit your description that should not be deleted (most of the first page of [[special:listuser]] for a start) -- geni

On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: In some of my chosen subjects, the red-link count is rather high. E.g. the lists of historic railroad companies in the US is probably only half-populated, and I doubt we have all of them even on the lists yet. The red links include some pretty notable systems indeed, of significant historical importance. At the same time, I'm quite aware that many people might consider an article on a Pokemon more interesting and relevant than one about an obscure 19th century railroad company. I choose, mostly, to avoid making judgments on the worth of subjects, only their verifiability. -Matt

On 5/6/06, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia(a)philwelch.net&gt; wrote: How objective can even a group of people be? They will all bring to a debate their preconceptions to both importance and notability. It is possible that some would say that any but the most popular nineteenth century musical composers have had little influence outside of the classical music arena. However, it would seem silly not to allow articles on more than just the top four or five composers from the nineteenth century simply because they haven't had mainstream impact. I think that an encyclopedia should document more then just the majority subjects in society. What practical harm is there to an online encyclopedia having articles which are well written and detail verifiable facts about the less well known aspects of "devoted communities"? Peter

On 5/7/06, jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com &lt;jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com&gt; wrote: People are becoming disillusioned by the current process which is liable to vote stacking, as described in the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGTraynor&diff=5163… Rather ironically the same person votes on AfD's that I have participated in with Delete per nom, ignoring the current discussion that has developed. Peter

On 5/5/06, Mark Wagner &lt;carnildo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Seriously, where did those figures come from? 4,535 articles on digimon characters? huh? Steve

Mark Wagner &lt;carnildo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett wrote: The two article surveys cited include 493 still-existent articles. At the time I started mangling statistics, Wikipedia had 1,117,850 articles. So, it was simply a matter of multiplying the article counts in the surveys by 2,267.44 and rounding to the nearest integer. Using google, excluding pages that have the word "talk", "user", or "archive", Digimon still gets about 18,500 en.wikipedia results. Pokemon gets about 30,100. About 643 for the category "american porn stars". If we can get porn stars more coverage, they are MASSIVE after all, I might compromise on splitting pop culture into a separate pedia.~~~~Pro-Lick --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

On 5/5/06, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia(a)philwelch.net&gt; wrote: It's an interesting idea, but applying this criterion you would end up with a Diana Moon Glampers encyclopedia, where nobody would dare to write an article on a popular subject lest he incur the wrath for the Handicapper General for unbalancing it. The *embarasse de richesse* with regard to Pokemon characters doesn't directly hamper the use of the encyclopedia by those wishing to read about the likes of Hegel and Schopenhauer and the Mills. It might be said, perhaps, that at most the quantity of Pokemon articles might drive away people who might otherwise contribute serious content on another subject. Then again, there's nothing stopping the compilers of a specialist encyclopedia on, say, philosophy, taking the Wikipedia content and placing it on a wiki (or other content editing system) of their own where it may be extended by those who would be repelled from Wikipedia, or those who would simply not find the philosophy articles amid the clutter. They could apply their own rules, provided the resulting content was made available under a GFDL-compatible license.

On 5/6/06, Cheney Shill &lt;halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: I have no interest in either 18th century philosophers or pop culture. Admins can steer clear of stuff that doesn't interest them if they want to. The pop culture section appears to be one of our most popular so it stays. Other than the copyvios there I can ignore it for the most part. -- geni

On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill &lt;halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Why don't we wait 100 years before we make that determination? I mean, we already do that for things from the 1800s or whatever, and it seems unfair to impose a higher standard on current things. I am no historian, but I imagine there are many, many things that have been derided as crap or pop culture or irrelevant by the generation which produced them, but later generations gleaned greater value from them than did their creators. (Off-hand, I'm thinking of Japanese romantic tales and novels in the Heian era, and fiction in European monasteries, and penny dreadfuls. No doubt others can adduce many other examples). To wax less prolix, we aren't in a very good position to determine what the future will find notable or not; all we can hope to do is filter out a decent portion of the crap. ~maru

On 5/6/06, Cheney Shill &lt;halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Nor are we in a position according to you to determine what crap is. After all, what we believe is crap today may very well to turn out to be bio-fuel or natural gas tomorrow. I'm simply setting forth one principle for determining what crap is. Besides, the real point of my recommendation in this context regarding pop-culture items (Pokemon, pop-stars, etc.) is to give them a holding place outside the encyclopedia itself that is still part of Wiki until we have better knowledge about where on the crap continuum they belong. I'm not recommending a flush, simply a split, and anything can be moved back to the encyclopedia and is of course still accessible and editable like any other Wiki content.~~~~Pro-Lick Not at all. We are currently in a position to judge well old stuff- I can't remember the last time someone complained about "Ancient Greek-cruft" or "Renaissance-cruft", so while we certainly are still missing notable stuff from those areas, we don't seem to have a problem keeping out the non-notable crap stuff from that area. My argument was that we should try to filter out the lower levels of horrible speedyable obvious crap that it is really unlikely anyone will ever want, and leave the non-horrible crap that isn't harming anything for later time periods to judge the finer borderline cases. There's a practice in writing which is to bang out something and get it nice, and then just leave it alone, coming back much later with a fresh mind. ~maru

On 5/6/06, Kirill Lokshin &lt;kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Whoa. Just goes to show that making generalizations in a place as big as Wikipedia is a perilous business. ~maru

"Cheney Shill" wrote I don't know that there is much to say on this topic, that has not already been said often before. What we know works is to look at - articles that contain reference infomation, in the sense that some class of people are going to want to refer to it - and which can be categorised clearly - and which meet some minimum standards of writing. We have never succeeded in defining encyclopedic knowledge more directly: notability is just a minefield, and everyone knows examples from popular culture where the stuff that has the high profile is the trash and the neglected or 'cult' is going to be what lasts. Everyone is entitled to the mental shift that designates Star Wars backstory pages as off-wiki as far as they are concerned. Why should we believe that finally drawing the line on inclusion is going to be possible? It's a theoretical issue for academics, really. Charles

On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:13:06 +0200, you wrote: This is true. So we should have an article on Pokemon. But there are articles on, for example, online games, which add pretty much nothing at all to the FAQ from the game site itself, and there are articles on Pokemon related subjects which are of no conceivable interest to anyone who is not already into Pokemon. Is that good or bad? I don't know. It does seem that there is a tendency for fans to use Wikipedia as a sort of Myspace, building vast temples to their small gods. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Sat, 06 May 2006 22:23:31 +0100, you wrote: Dear old Yuckfoo. Always so polite, and so predictable: "keep please, this is notable". Unverifiable, yes, unsourced of course, by common consent impossible to substantiate from any reputable independent source - but *notable*. Google 1, Policy 0. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 5/5/06, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia(a)philwelch.net&gt; wrote: Yes, but that's not "undue weight", which afaik, only applies to coverage of topics within a single article. Excessive coverage of one topic wrt another is simply {{sofixit}}... Steve