Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 11

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (assistance) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

User:Milliot

Milliot (talk · contribs) has started a great number of articles. I don't disagree with the notability of the majority of the subjects of the articles. However, it's clear that English is not Milliot's native language, and he or she also doesn't understand that Wikipedia articles shouldn't include personal opinion as to the wonderful work that the subjects of the articles do or did. Milliot feels that the use of adjectives such as "celebrated" "renowned" and "distinguished" is appropriate, and became upset when I removed them from just one of his/her articles. Can somebody give me some help? I have no interest in starting a war with Milliot, but he/she has written a great number of articles which need a lot of rewriting. Corvus cornix_talk 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Corvus cornix

Corvus cornix (talk · contribs) has made his/her point heard, and I should make mine as well. The information in the articles that I have contributed to & or started, are based on factual information from existing books, encyclopedias etc. The articles do not reflect my personal opinion.

My English I think is as good as most native speakers. People do have different styles of writing that is certain. Expanding wiki is the objective here, correct? When legendary artists, scientist etc. contribute to history, they earn the right to superlatives. As they are mentioned in such ways in pre-existing books & or encyclopedias. That establishes "fact" to that particular individual.Milliot (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ps: I have stated this earlier in our "talk back" section:

"Corvus, I notice that you are not an administrator. If you are a commited wiki contributor, you would see how much I have contributed. And calling my article sneaky is rather adolescent of you. The dynasty of Leonid Kogan and his wife Elizabeth Gilels, is an important one in the music world. Leonid Kogan is described in all of the history books, and encyclopedias as a legendary violinist. His wife is from the same circles and is considered an important violinist and one of the great pedagogues of the Soviet School. Her teacher ABRAM ILICH YAMPOLSKY is a world renowned pedagogue of the Soviet School of Violin. Who's students went on to become legendary. These figures of the music world have earned the right to these titles. Every known book mentions them in these terms. If you have issues, look them up to confirm your reservations. But please, stop belittling the legendary musicians and pedagogues by taking out the superlatives that they have earned in history. Would you call Einstein just a Scientist? Merci Milliot (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)"

"Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#User:Milliot. I have no quarrel with the notability of the subjects of your articles, nor do I want to take anything away from the large amount of work you have done, which I applaud, but there really needs to be a lot of work done to your articles to get them up to encyclopedic (and English grammatical) shape. Please don't take this as an attack, as it really is not, in any form. If you find this insulting, I strongly apologize, because I am really not trying to insult you. Corvus cornixtalk 23:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problems here. I have provided references where citation was requested. Perhaps you would like to offer me a service badge for the large amount of work I have done? :) Milliot (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)" Milliot (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise solution, how about Milliot is offered an invitation to make contributions to Wikipedia in keeping with our policies and guidelines? From the above discussion it seems that Wikipedia:Neutral Point Of View and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms are applicable here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User page duplicates article

Hi. Sorry if this is not the right place to post this but I don't know if what they have done is wrong or not. The user JCV9276 just appears to have duplicated Michael Jordan's article and put in his own (exaggerated) details. Is this something that is allowed or not? She'sGotSpies (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a violation of GFDL, and therefore of copyright, as he has not kept the edit history of the Michael Jordan article intact. Corvus cornix_talk 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked the page and explained the situation on his/her talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Good to know for the future! Thanks, She'sGotSpies (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

transfer to commons

Hi

I'de like to transfer this image (File:Lorica range.PNG) to commons : is there an automated procedure ? (There are lot of images interesting for commons !) Poleta33 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming an image meets the necessary criteria, I think you could just move it to the Commons and then follow #III.2 of Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#What_not_to_list_here. Unfortunately I don't know if there is an automated procedure.—RJH (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no automatic transfer of images, but Commons Helper will create a nicely formatted image description based on the Wikipedia image page to paste into the new Commons page. - BanyanTree 07:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Salesian High School Richmond

Im not sure if its a 24 hour 3RR situation, but an anonymous user 12.3.155.150 as well as others keep changing the mascot section to either a positive or negative point of view on the school mascot change process section. Either way, the content is unverifyable, and other aspects of the page are repeatedly vandalized. DukeB-120th (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a little edit war, but no 3RR. And a certain amount of vandalism often accompanies school articles, since they cater in part to an adolescent audience. With apologies, this one doesn't even stir me to drop the combatants a note; I'm going to trust it'll fizzle out when one side or other gets bored; or else someone'll get stompy with the perps. WP:AN or WP:ANI or WP:3RRN might be better places for this sort of report, IMO. If you have the energy you could try to combat the unverifiable nature of the content, go for it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help DukeB-120th (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war: kurdish people

There is an edit war going on at kurdish people. Comments and other input needed.--Vindheim (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Take the first steps of Dispute resolution. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#User:emerson7

• Giovanni Battista Guadagnini

verifications;

Please help. I seem to be having a problem with emerson7 undoing work that I have contributed. The adds. that I have made are self explanatory. The issue is with "Performers who have used or are using Guadagnini instruments"

The performers who have used (and most of them are deceased), are linked to wiki articles. The instruments that these artists used, are linked to a professional database cozio.com. The links are to specific instruments they have used (which are marked accordingly on cozio site). If emerson7 is not familiar with such information, he/she should either get familiar & or try to correct whatever it is that he/she does not agree with. But deleting valuable information and reverting it back to the way it was, which was insufficient for that reason had these posted: {{Original research}} {{Unreferencedsection}}

This is what has been said between us so far:

"any claim made regarding blp must be buttressed by reliable, verifiable references. --emerson7 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific "regarding blp" ?Milliot (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

blp is a reference to assertions made regarding living people. further, you cannot use wikipedia articles as references. --emerson7 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, I was not the one using wikipedia articles as references.Milliot (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)" Milliot (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Emerson7 - and others - are perhaps a little frustrated with what appears to them to be a persistent failure on your part to accept some of the norms of wikipedia, embodied most notably in the Manual of Style. I have looked at only a faction of the edits involved: I can see instances where you should not have been reverted, but in which, equally, you have added content with little or no attention to style. I hope and expect that you will take the time to consider the extent to which the way in which you present the information you append to articles impacts upon people's judgments of those additions; just as I hope and expect that Emerson7 will do his best to embrace & extend your contributions, for example by formatting them, rather than extinguishing them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

it is neither my place nor intention to repeatedly play clean up after milliot. if after an attempt is made to explain why certain edits are incorrect, and they are not corrected, it is appropriate those those edits to be removed. --emerson7 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It might then be better to leave the content for someone else to tidy, than remove it. If content is repeatedly in need of & gets tidied, Milliot might start to see th pattern. If it is merely deleted he will not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

emerson7 is now the second person that I'm aware of (I'm the first) who has been driven to avoid Milliot because he isn't interested in collegial editing. Corvus cornix_talk 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Tagishsimon. I like what you did with Giovanni Battista Guadagnini.

Emerson7;

interesting choice of words Emerson7. I believe it was you who kept reverting back Nagyvary to a Stradivari article. Which really had no place of being there since it was about his experiments, which have been rebuked by experts in the field. And now you are waging war on relevant information which I have contributed to (in other articles), which you keep deleting. Shame on you. There is no reason for this, as most people here are really trying to make wiki a better source of information. Deleting valuable information, after it has been added is really not nice. Please stop. Now you are doing same with Messiah Stradivari article by deleting very relevant information about a person who played an immense part in its history. If you are not familiar with the history, then read about it. But please take Tagishsimon's advice.Milliot (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest taking this to WP:3O or maybe even WP:MEDCAB. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

request to restart inactive WikiProject

I would like some editors who have a better mathematics education than I, and perhaps some professional scientists (if they have the time, which I realize they don't) to please consider resuscitating WikiProject General Audience. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sig Help

I was wondering how I might place the 'contribs' in my signature above 'Improve' with a line between them, sort of like a fraction or something or other. Anyone know how to do this?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 09:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, please tell me on my talk page/reply on my talk page, I have too many pages in my watch list already.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 09:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Daedalus969#Your "sig help" post on Village Pump. — Athaenara ✉ 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with bad template transclusion

This discussion doesn't seem to have made it onto the Template:RFCstyle list even though I tried to format it correctly. Any ideas? Yechiel (Shalom) 03:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Bennet

At the wiki of Jimmy Bennett the filmography-table is at the bottom, but it should be under the heading 'Filmography'. I can't change it, who helps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riehcoow (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done The table was not closed, and there was a problem with colspan. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 09:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do

A user is adding false royal titles to the infobox of Cyrus the Great (Emperor of Media, Basieleus of Lydia, King of Neo-Babylonia) without providing any reference (in fact he couldn't provide it, since such titles doesn't exist). When I try to show that he's wrong, he replies with nonsense: [1], [2]. I don't know where to go in order to stop him. I've read about vandalism, mediation and arbitration, and I got confused; this case doesn't seem to fit with any of them. Where do I have to go? Thanks in advance. Amizzoni (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also warnings for addition of unsourced material; if he keeps on going, just gradually add the warnings as you would someone who was vandalising a page. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI

Trogocytosis is an unreferenced article (created last week) about some part of the human immune system. The same user that created the article created, just today, an article [since deleted] about a nonnotable scientist who works with immunology. Because the user justified the creation of the scientist's article as "my boss told me to write this page about him", I'm wondering if there's a COI here too. Could someone who knows biology check this page? I haven't a clue about the technical terminology, so I can't do a thing. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know little about biology, but the process of trogocytosis seems to get at least some discussion in scientific circles - I found 1700 Google hits and a bunch on Google Scholar. It seems to exist, anyhow - that should provide a starting point. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is apparent COI, in the section "Trogocytosis by Granulocytes", which appears to be based on a paper by, amongst others, Martin Herrmann, the scientist whose article was deleted. Dana Weidner, our article author, has also contributed to the German wiki page on Martin Herrmann. That said, I'm not inclined to make an edit as a result, a) because I cannot gauge the significance of the section, and b) because it appears to be written in a fairly neutral style. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this person notable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Chan If so, how can the formating be fixed? tnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catagraph (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable original research?

Hi. I'm well aware of Wikipedia:No original research, but still have a question: I have written most of the Chrysiridia rhipheus article, and would like to find the etymology of the name. I have found "Etymology: From the Latin Montes Rhiphaeus = Ural Mts." [3] and "Derivation of name: From Rhiphaeus (Greek) – the ancient name of the Urals." [4], which is confirmed by my Latin dictionary. Would saying that is (or is probably) the etymology be original research? If yes, is it "acceptable"? (Note that the original author of the name did not give the real/intended etymology ; Drury's Illustrations of Natural History, see p.40). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty tenuous - a moth from Madagascar named after a mountain range in Russia? Even if you think you're right, I would put that in a footnote, or at best parens, phrased something like "Rhiphaeus, apparently from the ancient Greek name for the Ural Mountains. Intended etymology not given by author Drury". - BanyanTree 07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It might help to say that Drury thought his specimen was from China, making this link is more OR, but it's the best I have. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 11:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Circadian Advantage conflict of interest

I've been looking at the Circadian advantage page for the past few days and its sole author is one Wcwinter, who seems to be Dr. W. Christopher Winter, the author of most of the research into this particlular area. As he is an expert, he is clearly in a good place to provide much of the information about this article, but at the same time this is his own research project, so there may be a conflict of interest where he is likely not to report any problems or detractors.

I could just tag the article with {{coi}}, but that wouldn't fix the problem. The article seems too small for a peer review. What should I do? I have had a short discussion with him at Talk:Circadian advantage and he certainly means well. Rhebus (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As you know, COIs are strongly discouraged rather than prohibited and should be examined on a case-by-case basis. The concern is self-promotion, advertising, inability to speak neutrally. While a researcher or scientist writing about their own theory can suffer from pitfalls (especially when writing about a subject in which they have a competing theory they wish to promote over others in the same area, or if the subject is non-notable and the attempt is to make it seem like more), it's still quite different than a person writing about their business/band/book, which is uniquely situated to run to ad-speak-peacocking, aggrandizement. Scientists and researchers don't have this promotional need built in, because writing about the subject can involve simply describing it well and scientists and researchers often already strive for neutrality. So such authors can in some cases write in the way we would want any editor of a subject to write without any knowledge of COI, and be the perfect person to do so; we almost never see this in the other types of COIs. So I would say, just monitor and make sure no flags are raised in the text, but I don't really see a problem here since it reads okay.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; I agree with what you say and it makes things much clearer. Rhebus (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fughettaboutit, that's the most commonsense explanation of COI I've seen recently, and refreshing compared to the many editors who threaten to immediately ban anyone with any hint of COI. I'm stopped mentioning when I see users with identifiable COIs who are making good edits, for fear of attracting the attention of a COI enforcer-type. (The block of User:USSTRATCOM PAO still rankles, looking at that account's contributions history.) - BanyanTree 14:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all the contributions of User:USSTRATCOM PAO were good, and personally I don't see the need for a username block in such a case. (Policy is nervous about such names but doesn't require blocking them unless used for promotion). Lately I have noticed some editors insisting that company-named accounts prove that they are authorized by the company. This seems to me an unnecessary step (and one that User:USSTRATCOM PAO never surmounted). EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Banyan and you're welcome Rhebus. Really everything should be looked at critically. We are not a bureacracy and hidebound slavish adherence to rules without examining the context always leads to trouble. That's why ignore all rules (often misinterpreted) is a foundational policy:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking a revision and evaluation of my editions

Dear friends,

I fall in this discussion. I taught it was a good one in order to improve the article, but it came to be personal. As the user is putting in doubt the transparency of my editions (see the discussion), I ask a revision of my works in wikipedia English, Spanish and Commons Wikimedia (User:Albeiror24). If my work is stuff, as he suggested or if I am damaging or altering information, please I want to know where, when and how. Please, I need a refery in this discussion, because the user turned from the article to my person. I have worked in wikipedia for more than three years and I have ready to keep dialogue with anybody. Thank you. --Albeiror24 (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Definable Markup Language

Greetings, people. I'd like to know if there is a user-definable markup language. I mean a program that will convert plain text into whatever document by the user-defined rules. A program in which you could, for example, imitate the wikitext markup. So you define special characters and/or tags that will be translated into something else, for instance: '''string''' means <b>string</b>. Is there something like that? --Zajoman (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a more appropriate word for what I'm looking for would be text converter. --Zajoman (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You can start at Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools#Wikisyntax conversion utilities and also the many hits, for example, that are returned for a Google search of "converter html wiki markup". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. --Zajoman (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. David Neiman

Seven sources from major newspapers have been added to the article on Dr. David Neiman. Can someone remove the warning that states there are no references or sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.97.228 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There ya go. Seegoon (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with image moved to the Commons

The NASA image File:Yarlang tsango river tibet.jpg was moved to Wiki Commons and deleted from Wikipedia. Therefore, the image was deleted from the article it was in, Yarlung Tsangpo River (Tibet)‎, by a bot. How do I get the image back into the article. I cannot find the image on the Commons. There is no image by that name there. Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 13:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick Googling shows that it's on the Commons at File:Yarlung Tsangpo river tibet.jpg. Algebraist 13:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. When I did a search at the Commons, it did not show up. The result was no such image there. I wish images were not automatically moved to the commons and deleted from articles. Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Public domain and other free images are moved to commons so that they can be used by other projects rather than only the english Wikipedia. If the title had been kept the same, none of the links would be broken, and there would have been no confusion. — CharlotteWebb 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking articles in a series

In the 1970s, NASA started the Small Astronomy Satellite program, which involved 3 satellites named SAS-1, SAS-2, and SAS-3. Looking at the individual articles there is nothing obvious linking them.

I'd like to add an identical section to each article that would describe the SAS program, and link the other 2 articles. Would it be approprate to transclude a subsection? What is the best way of handling this? --George100 (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You could edit the Template:Explorer program nav-box to group the more closely related spacecrafts together on separate lines. — CharlotteWebb 03:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I did edit the template here [5] to add the second and third satellites. The spacecraft are in sequential order, and adding another line would be confusing. --George100 (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Korean singers and Category:South Korean singers

Are there any difference between these 2 categories? Weltanschauung☯Ĥòĭnäþbåķtšýñ 12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that South Korean singers is a subsection of Korean singers. For more infomration, it might be worth asking at the Popular culture section of Wikiproject Korea. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Korean singers is a higher level category (south Korean singers is a subcategory of it) and south Korean singer would exclude North Korean singers that the parent category would not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the theory, yes, but if you look at Category:Korean singers, not one of them is noticably North Korean and all of them could live in Category:South Korean singers. I think that is the point the OP was making. Rhebus (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That has more to do with North Korea itself than anything else, and is not a problem of the category per se. MSJapan (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If the category only contains South Korean singers, then what is the point in having it? It would be like having a Category:British tartans which would be completely overwhelmed by Scottish tartans. Although there is no reason that the English couldn't produce a tartan, the fact is that there are notable Scottish tartans but no notable English tartans.

If I add a South Korean singer to wikipedia, do I add him to Korean singers, South Korean singers or both? I would say only South Korean singers, because it is a subcat of Korean singers. However there is enough confusion that Na Hoon-a, a South Korean singer, is only listed in Category:Korean singers, which means that neither Korean singers nor Category:South Korean singers is an exhaustive list of South Korean singers. Shinwa, meanwhile, is listed in both categories. Having two separate categories causes administrative confusion. Rhebus (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this image public domain?

File:Bunyak.jpg is of a deceased person from over 100 years ago. He is from Russia and the image likely is of Russian origin. It currently is listed as non-free promotional, but could this be retagged as public domain, due to age? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It likely is in the public domain, however, because copyright based on age is governed by the life of the creator + 70 years (in the case of the US, other countries have longer periods), there conceivably is the possibility that a young photographer took the photograph, and lived until the 1940s. When you tack on the additional 70 years, it's not yet in the public domain. You'd have to have the source information for the original creator, and when that person died to have 100% certainty that the image is PD.

Alternatively, if you can demonstrate that the photograph was published (as opposed to created) in the US before 1923, it is also in the public domain in the United States, but may not be elsewhere. I hope that answers your question. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SnoutBusters

SnoutBusters is a movie planned to be made in russia. The information gathered about the movie was taken from a source that has since deleted the information, do we:

• Remove the article.
• Find a new source.
• Remove uncited claims.
• Leave it.

Cindy Flynn (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin misconduct

I just wanted to know if there's a page to complain about (probable) professional misconduct by an administrator? Thanks and regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN would be the suggested first stop - get the admin's actions checked by other admins. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Features problems

I don't really know where to put this, so I just put it where it seemed to logically make sense. I am currently having problems with user added features. The problem is that I have some. Specifically Twinkle and Popups. This is a problem because my pages for things like this are blank. I do not know what is causing this, but if someone could provide assistance, or point me in the direction of assistance, it would be greatly appreciated. Rau's Speak Page 13:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Weirdness in My Article

 Done
I haven't had any luck figuring out what's going on in this article: List of Phi Sigma Kappa chapters Any new ref tags are not appearing and the TOC is showing up toward the bottom of the article. I've scanned through the code a dozen times and just can't see what's going wrong. Any assistance would be appreciated. Corsulian (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the TOC problem, please change the title of that section to an appropriate one. An alternative to that solution is to place __FORCETOC__ at the top of the page. This would remove the requirement for the list to be in it's own section. I am looking into the references problem. Rau's Speak Page 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem your references weren't working (get ready to smack yourself) is because "|reference=" needs to be "|Reference=", the "R" needs to be capitalized. I think that is friggin hilarious. And the reason reading through the code didn't work is because one problem was the lack of something and the other was something so mundane that it went unnoticed. I ran around seven tests to find it. Rau's Speak Page 14:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image problem

On the Toyohara Kunichika page I have an File: [Actor_Red_Face.jpg]. In the last week or two the image has been "overwritten" with some other, very degraded image. If I click on the thumbnail, the correct image comes up. I uploaded the file again, with no improvement in results. I have combed through the source looking for an explanation but can find none. Help! --Clhowson (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a good images, so imagine the problem is with your local cache? Not much help, except to say that everyone except you will not be seeing the problem :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am so grateful to you. I did a control-reload and solved not only this mystery but another as well. Thank you, thank you! --Clhowson (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's better than seeing you go slowly mad :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

St Georges Circus article

 Done

I just need some editorial help having added a short para about The replica obelisk in Brookwood Cemy to the St Georges Circus, Southwark, article.

I loaded up a pic of this to wikmedia commons calling it IMAG0010 (actually I intended to rename it, but didn't manage to)

Can someone find a way of putting a ref to this pic on the page, if they deem it worthy?

TY

Tanyajane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanyajane (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Template coding

Among the features of {{US county navigation box}} is a line to include the county seat at the top of the template. For various reasons, a few US counties have two county seats, so the template has been coded to allow two seats to be listed. However, as you can see with {{Arkansas County, Arkansas}}, when there are two seats, it still displays as "County seat" rather than "County seats". Could someone make a small change to the code so that it will be plural when the two-seat coding is activated? I should note, by the way: because of different terminology, Alaska's seats are "borough seats", Louisiana's are "parish seats", and Vermont's are "shire towns"; the coding is already present, so (if this change is possible) the plurals will simply have to be added for them, too. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I believe I made the fix. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits made by User:117.198.81.42

 Done Hi,

The anonymous user 117.198.81.42 has made 6 edits. They all involve blanking sections.

• Could someone please revert those edits?

• More importantly: Why did no bot notice those edits and revert them? I would have thought bots should be highly suspicious of section blanking by anon users.

Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of them were reverted that day. The ones that weren't have been taken care of. Rau's Speak Page 06:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange punctuation templates

Not sure this should go here, but I'd like to draw experienced editors' attention to:

• Template://
• Template:+
• Template:,

Upon checking the various templates with punctuation-only names, these three stood out to me as being, well, strange. I'll leave it to others to decide what, if anything should be done with them. - dcljr (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{,}} has over 50 uses and a clear (undocumented) purpose: it's a small suped comma to separate multiple refs. {{+}} was a shortcut for the magic word {{urlencode}} until it was changed, apparently without discussion or rewriting of documentation, into a rather pointless template for !voting keep. {{//}} is totally unused (except possibly for substs, of course) and I can't work out what it's for at all. Algebraist 10:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Template:+, it only had a couple uses in old pages and historically, consensus is strongly against voting templates. Mr.Z-man 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Evans information needs to be corrected

This is Jack Evans,

The information regarding me is not correct in a couple areas.

First - my middle name is Edward

Second - I attended a wrestling school that Tim Flowers was a trainer at, but was not trained by Tim Flowers and would request crediting him be removed

Third - In Calgary, I was trained directly by Stu Hart and in fact believe I was the last student that trained with him. I lived with Stu for near two years and received more training from him than the others you mention.

Forth, the myspace you list is my personal page, My wrestling page is Jack711Evans please change to pint to my actual wrestling myspace page

I am sure you will want to verify this information, please tell me what you will require to correct these inaccuracies and I will do what I can to provide the documentation.

Respectfully Jack Edward Miller (Evans) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.177.0 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I made all the requested changes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues and definite citation issues at Gas Works Park

I see some possible copyright issues at Gas Works Park. I've raised them on the article's talk page, but no one has weighed in. Wikipedia:Copyright problems seems to state that blanking the page (or majorly reverting it) is a prelude to any discussion there, which doesn't seem to me to be in order: I honestly don't know whether the document that was apparently copied is public domain or not. I do know that some document's inline citations were picked up intact without providing the bibliography that would make sense of those citations.

Is there a better venue to take this up? Is someone interested in shepherding this issue and working out what we should do? - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. Long and short of it, is I think the text needs to be removed as a putative copyvio, but no need to blank and take to WP:CP as there is a non-infringing version to revert to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Just noticed there's a user in the category of Pope Pius XII... is this appropriate? I don't want to upset anyone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pope_Pius_XII The captain rommel of the desert (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed this by going to the user talkpage in question and putting a colon at the beginning of the category link, like this: [[:Category:Pope Pius XII]]. This leaves a link to the category, but ensures that the page itself does not turn up in the category. --BelovedFreak 01:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with The Fugitive (1993 film) Article

This article seems to be pretty screwed up. Not even the sidebar buttons are working. Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.23.101 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It works fine for me. Rau's Speak Page 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. My computer only shows the title and the first four words of the article. Maybe my computer has issues, but since only the one article was giving me a problem, I thought something was up. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.23.101 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it working now? Rau's Speak Page 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

People v. Jovanovic details

Yesterday I reverted an anonymous edit that removed various details from the People v. Jovanovic article. Can someone with a better nose for this kind of thing take a look at it and see if any of the details in there are inappropriate? — PhilHibbs | talk 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion appears to be justified as the anon expunged large amounts of details, but did not provide a rationale. If it happens again, direct them to the talk page to discuss the changes. If it goes unanswered, but continues unabated, warn them about the removal of content. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation needed in conflict!

Hello! I do hope this is the proper place to post this. (I resently posted this wrong, so I hope this is the right place!) I have came across a conflict with an participant in the talk-page of List of Swedish queens. The conflict is about which peopple should be included. Simple enough, as it may seem, there is an issue about this. In the 15th century, the Swedish regents did not have the title of king, nor did their wifes have the formal title of queen. The regents did, however, have the independent position of a king, as did their wifes have the position of queens, and for this reason, the regents are given a place in the list of kings in history. This is the policy chosen in the list of kings in both Swedish and English wikipedia, and until resently, the regent consorts have, accordningly, been given the same place in the list of queens, both in Swedish and English Wikipedia.

Now, this have been questioned by a user in both wikipedias. I have suggested that the matter should be treated with a majority vote, but the user refuses to respect this. Instead, he simply changes the revision-history of the article. This is a discussion which is also going on at the same article on Swedish Wikipedia at the moment. There, the majority are so far in favor of including, in policy with the fact that the regents are included in the list of kings, with the condition that the regent consorts are marked in some way, just as the regents, are, indeed, in the list of kings. Oddly, he does not seem to wish to exclude the regents from the list of kings. I have tried to ask him why he will not accept my suggestion of a majority vote. On Swedish wikipedia, he has told me that he is not interested to discuss with a non registered user. I would respect a majority descision no matter what the outcome. I hope that someone is villing to help. All I ask, is that he could respect the need for a majority vote. Please, could some one take part in the discussion, no matter what opinion, and ask him to at least respect a majority descision. I would be very grateful for your help! Regards--85.226.235.208 (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By the logic provided by above user, Carla Bruni should be included in List of Queens and Empresses of France. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Thuresson (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not so simple as that, as you will see when you read the discussion. Both of us are of course locked in our way of looking at this matter. This is why we need your assistance! --85.226.235.208 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EA and WP:3O. This page isn't the right place to ask for editors to opine on content disagreements. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Three revert problem

I am having a problem -- a user has made a third reversion at Senecioneae‎. I do not understand what wiki stalking is, but I feel like I am being stalked and if anyone is paying any attention, just a look at the records and edit history of the people involved at my talk page right now and the history of reversions being made at my recent articles -- that feeling I have might be somewhat justified.

Help? -- carol (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see evidence for cyberstalking. Would it be possible to assume good faith and work through the editing issues, perhaps via mediation? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New format for TfD and CfD

We have come to consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions that WP:CFD and WP:TFD should use a format like WP:AFD and WP:MFD, meaning all discussions should have sub-pages that are transcluded. This is a huge change to two very important WP pages, and I have no idea how to go about it. How are such things normally done? JohnnyMrNinja 16:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It happens rarely enough that there is no "normal" way. You have two intertwined processes you need to work, which you can do either by front-loading all the work or by being very BOLD. One of the two processes is the approval process. Many people who have a stake in XfD discussions do not follow Wikipedia:Village pump. These will include the admins who will have to work the new system, but also the wide array of people who regularly participate in such processes, the editors who occasionally wander through but feel that every proposal needs their personal approval, and people who will parse such a proposal for political impacts from the perspective of deletionism/inclusionism/etc. The other process is the administrative process, since basically everything linked from {{Deletiondebates}} will have to be modified, as well as bots on deletion-related tasks, relevant Mediawiki messages, etc. The bold option would be to simply start changing the CFD and TFD pages with a minimum of fuss in the expectation that other editors will realize how reasonable it is and help out. This may be a tough sell, given that you have a small number of participating editors (I would expect something this large to have at least a hundred editors weighing in).

My recommendation is to be less bold and front-load your work: create a proposal page detailing what is going on - what pages will be affected, template standardizatione, expected outcomes, expected spin-off effects on DRV, etc. Post a link to the new proposal from the proposals and assistance subpages of the Village Pump, as well as other major stakeholders, which may include WP:AN, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion, as well as the discussion pages for various deletion discussion-related pages. Treat this as a comments phase, with two desired outcomes: editors poking holes in the proposal so you can improve it and gaining a body of editors who will help implement the proposal, rather than just stand by and not oppose it while you exhaust yourself doing all the work. Do not start a poll for approval at this point, since you want the best proposal you can get before getting to that stage. The comments phase may end a couple of ways: the best option is that a substantial number of editors who actually have pull in the deletion processes (active XfD discussants, admins who close a significant percentage of XfDs, owners of bots who do deletion stuff, etc) decide that this is the best idea they've ever heard, give you barnstars and implement the proposal, doing all the work themselves. The more likely option is that you'll end up incorporating criticisms and comments into a final proposal and have a big poll to get consensus. Hopefully you'll be able to have a poll without getting it added to the top of everyone's watchlist (at which point it becomes a free for all and you lose all hope of structuring the discussion), but adding it to the notices board of the Wikipedia:Community Portal and perhaps a mention in the Signpost. The two tensions you're trying to manage at this point are the desire to get the support, or at least acquiescence, of all the people who can derail the proposal, as well as inform the moderately active editors who don't interact with the process all that much but like to stay informed and put their two cents in, while avoiding getting Clueless Newbies One through Fifty, who don't even know what CFD and TFD are, to show up and be clueless. If you are confident that you are going to get, let's say, "80% support" over the designated length of the poll, then state that as your target for consensus, so everyone can be tremendously impressed when such a high bar is met. If you aren't confident, don't state a target percentage so you can claim that the eventual number equals consensus. The third option is that there's no way you can spin the final support percentage as consensus. If you have failed because of a technical or administrative flaw in the proposal, e.g. there turns out to be a substantive but unintended negative tertiary effect on how WikiProjects evaluate their B-class candidates for some reason, you can revise the proposal and resubmit, after a bit of wait so people don't feel that you're trying to bludgeon them into submission. The absolute worst outcome would be for the proposal to become associated with an ideology or associated with an existing clique, and fail because its become politicized. If someone starts talking about how the proposal is obviously great because it integrates perfectly with "aggressive BLP enforcement"/"deleting webcomics"/"deciding policy through IRC"/etc, quash that discussion right away and hope nobody noticed.

And that is my WikiPolitics 214: How to structure and manipulate proposal polls. Good luck. - BanyanTree 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I had posted links to the proposal at WT:CFD, WT:SFD, WT:TFD, WT:DRV, WT:DS, and the unrelated WT:VG. I have now posted links at WT:AFD, WT:MFD, WP:AN, WT:DELT and WT:DPR asking for input to build more of a consensus. I suppose I will now wait and see. JohnnyMrNinja 08:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

With the consensus of editors from these projects, I have proceeded to create Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Transclusion as a place to begin trial edits of these essential project pages. I know very little about what I am doing, so any form of assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

--Jst007 (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hi i am luking 4 an adminship. i am trying out self request. but i can't find out ver i should put my request. can u pls assist me.

Before I tell you how to create one, I would suggest you wait several months as I believe yours would fail. A very quick rule of thumb is that less than 1,000 edits will likely fail through snowballing, at least to me. See Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship which gives advice on why it may not be a good idea for you to try - yet. If you still wish to go through, then instructions are here, and good luck. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem at Commons

An editor has uploaded a picture of Billy Gillispie at the Wikimedia Commons which he claims to be the author of, but this link would seem to suggest otherwise. (The picture is the one in the infobox on BG's Wikipedia page.) I believe the same image was deleted from Wikipedia a while ago. If it were on Wikipedia again, I'd deal with it, but I don't have an account at the Commons, and don't particularly care to create one and figure out how they do things over there to get things like this deleted. Can someone who knows the ropes over at the Commons look into this? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you use Special:MergeAccount you will never have to know or care about which sites you registered on. — CharlotteWebb 09:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Man vandalism

The article Isle of Man has been severely vandalized to the point where I really don't know what to do since just about everything is gone on that page. Can someone fix it? Mazeau (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be fine. Has it been fixed, or are there problems I can't see? SilkTork *^YES! 11:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it appears fine, and I also note that you've never edited Isle of Man or Talk:Isle of Man. Suggest you start at the latter to discuss issues you have with the article with its regular contributors. Darkspots (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting approval to use images.

There is a website [6] that has many images of aircraft [7] that I would like to use. Is there a proper, formal, way to e-mail the website owner and seek approval for this? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If they do indeed own the rights to those pictures, you can ask them to send an email to OTRS documenting that they release the pictures under a free license. I guess they could also agree to a more limited use, such as permission to use freely only on particular pages, but I haven't heard of that before. And anything they agree to would leave a link back to their website on every image page created for their images, which may be enticement enough for them, you'll have to see. The email has to be sent from an address listed on their website (we need proof that someone who actually has authority is releasing the rights). Someguy1221 (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You could direct them to WP:YOURPHOTO for instructions on submissions. You are not allowed to use images with permission to use freely only on particular pages as that does not fall under the free content definition. You could also ask the copyright holder to email photosubmissionwikimedia.org with permission to release the image under a free license. Anonymous101 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited an article and realized it was right all along- how do I put it back to normal?

I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to discuss this, but there was nowhere else to go. I read an Okami (game) article and thought a certain piece concerning Ameratsu's gender was wrong, so I cut it out. I then realized that I had made a huge mistake and that the article was completely fine. I read that Wikipedia keeps editing history, so Wikipedia might be able to fix it.

Very sorry for the inconvenience! Mr.Pocket (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(above comment edited for standard talk page formatting) I already took care of it; we do have edit histories and honest misunderstandings like this are easily repaired, so no worries. --MASEM 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked on Simple English Wikipedia

For some reason, my IP is blocked over there by a "Creol" for abusing multiple accounts and so I can't edit anything. The block is in place despite me being logged in (in theory, at least) through unified login (I have 0 contribs there at the moment, that might be why). Please help! It Is Me Here (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's a softblock, are you able to edit if you clear your cookies and then manually log in? If that's the case, this is definitely worth reporting to Bugzilla. If not, well, you'll have to post an unblock request at the simple Wikipedia, seeing as seperate Wikis have independent administrators. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, you've done this before: Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 10#IP blocked on Simple English Wikipedia. I helped you out that time, you were all set when we were finished. I find it a little confusing that you didn't mention your previous post to this board. Also, look at the most recent thread on your talk page. Darkspots (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just double checked all the associated blocks (multiple /16 ranges are blocked) and all that I found are soft blocked. As the blocks are mainly all five to seven months old and I have over 1200 blocks to look through, I may have missed one but without knowing what IP range is blocked, it is hard to tell. Creol (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for not providing a link to the other discussion - anyway, it looks like I can edit Simple English Wikipedia now so thanks for the help! It Is Me Here (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

End of the Roman Empire

Hy there, it seems that I, Flamarande (talk) , am in a 'deadlock situation' in the article Roman Empire. The thorny issue in question is "the end date of the Roman empire". As you can verify in the articles talkpage I provided a proper link to Encyclopaedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507739/Roman-Empire which clearly shows: Roman Empire, ancient state, [27 bc-476 ad]. I also provided several sources (recent books written by respected historians) that I personally own and re-checked. Most of them show 476 either as the end date of the Roman Empire or, alternatively, of the Western Roman empire. The other side User:Goremite (talk • contribs) is bent on imposing 1453, which is the end date of the Eastern Roman empire (today known as Byzantine Empire) as the only end date and absolutely refuses the compromise previously accepted by several users of having both dates: 476 / 1453, which is in IMHO more than fair.

I do know and acknowledged that the issue ("When did the Roman empire end?") is largely a matter of interpretation. The teaching and knowledge of History is, as almost everything in human sciences, surely debatable and indeed sometimes slowly changes with the passing of time and new discoveries. But Wikipedia is not about the search for the truth, and its articles should and are supposed to reflect our knowledge of history as it is currently taught by historians and teachers.

I also want to point out that among his truly huge amount of edits (15) this user manages: (sorry for the diff's I don't know how to present them correctly):

1. to claim that I'm a slanderer and that 476 is a "stupid" date
2. degrades the sources that I presented as "comic books"
3. and claims that he is "a historian who already knows what historians say and think", but that I'm "someone who misunderstands and/or misrepresents the literature."

I argued the issue ad absurdum and ad nauseam with the other side to no effect. Therefore I'm hereby requesting the assistance of a third and neutral party. The article has been the victim of a short edit war and of sockpuppetry (which has stopped) because of this issue and I strongly advise interested parties to read very carefully the articles talkpage. I also want to add that I'm no innocent, but I will not lower myself to the point of personal attacks and I have absolutely no interest in having a revert-war. Thank you. Flamarande (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a point of contention. It seems quite clear that whether or not the Byzantine Empire is the One True Roman Empire is a matter of definition rather than debate. The one serious piece of advice I have for you is stop edit warring, regardless of whether or not you have violated WP:3RR, even if you are right. (It appears that you have already heeded this advice.) Both you and User:Goremite have been using edit summaries, rather than talk pages, to talk to each other. This is not the purpose of edit summaries -- they are there to summarise edits. Neither you nor Goremite have written on each other's User talk -- how can you expect this to end without dialogue? I suggest you write to User:Goremite explaining your position. Hopefully he will reply explaining his position, and you can progress from there. If he doesn't reply, or if his reply violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, then seek outside help again. Good luck. rhebus (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Without dialogue? I believe that I have done this in the Talk:Roman Empire. I argued my point until exhaustion, presenting hard evidence, only to get answers full of sarcasm. Flamarande (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad -- I accidentally checked a past revision rather than the current revision and didn't see the latest comments. rhebus (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Please read the talkpage of the article (especially the sub-sections 'Page protection' and 'John Bagnall Bury') carefully. I think the posts speak for themselves. No wanting to hide anything I acknowledge that I probably overreacted with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cody7777777 but that I think that is very strange that when one user (acount) ceases to interfere, another user (account) steps in. All accounts being very recent creations, with no prior edits anywhere else at all. Flamarande (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the WP:DR page would probably be useful to you. rhebus (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked around but I honestly couldn't find the proper 'place'. If you think that another 'place' is more appropriate please tell me so. I will transfer the case towards it. Flamarande (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the link I sent you. There is a list at WP:DR#Turn_to_others_for_help. For example, you could ask at WP:EA or WP:3O or WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN or WP:Wikiquette alerts for incivil discussion, all of which are mentioned at WP:DR. At each stage it would certainly be polite to inform the others of your action. Also I refer you to John Broughton's comment above under #Mediation needed in conflict! rhebus (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Color

How would I change it so that I have a much darker theme on wikipedia, with black backgrounds and white text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxoplasma (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can do this with custom CSS if you set your mind to it. An easier way to do almost what you want is to turn on the gadget 'Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin' in your preferences. Algebraist 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions on English Wikipedia Dumps

Hi,

I am trying to work with the SQL and XML dumps of the English Wikipedia and I have some questions regarding the Database Schema – and how to process it. Is this the best place to ask these questions – or should I post them somewhere else. I am sorry if this is the wrong place.

As of now my sources for the following discussion are Schema Diagram and this informal description of the Database Schema in MySQL.

My Question:

I would like to get the list of active pages (not the past history) on the Wikipedia. For this I made the assumption that the Text Table contains this information. Is this true? In my attempts of looking at it it seems that there are previous versions also available

I would be grateful for any help. --O o 82 (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC) o_o_82

A better place for technical questions is WP:VPT. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John. I never knew that there was a technical version of this Village Pump --O o 82 (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC) o_o_82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.75.38 (talk)

Viewing all your wiki contributions?

I think I once saw a page which showed a user's contributions across all wiki projects - how do I get to it? Thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters is your friend. It suggests this tool. Algebraist 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It Is Me Here (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antioch University Ph.D. in Leadership and Change Program)

(AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antioch University Ph.D. in Leadership and Change Program)

Antioch University Ph.D. in Leadership and Change Program

Our page was recently deleted, but I don't feel that I was given enough information regarding notability.

We provided credible, third-party sources. Paraphrased articles so that it didn't plagiarize the content. These third-party sources give notability by discussing the Program, but they also give some background to the universities which is then linked back to additional webpages. Your page mentioned independent sources outside of the subject. So does this mean outside the subject of Education or just from Antioch University?

The comment below:

Delete I see nothing here other than info belonging in a institutional website. No notability established (being a Ph.D. is hardly enough, there are maaaany of those), nor WP is a website hosting service. - Nabla (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We provided the same basic information using this wikipedia PhD Program: Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program as a guide, and it would also appear on a website for this particular PhD program. So we seem to be on different pages on what you assume is credible and what is supposed to be on this wiki page.

If this program was added to the Antioch University wikipedia page, what then would change notability? Binguser (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The notability policy includes WP:NNC which states explicitly that notability only governs which articles should exist, not the content of articles. So if your PhD program is deemed not notable, what this means is "not notable enough to justify a separate article". As such, WP:N is no barrier to adding this program to Antioch University, regardless of its notability; however, we should not give one course more weight than others unless it is more significant than others.

Without seeing the third-party sources you mention, I cannot comment if they satisfy the WP:N requirements. The AfD discussion certainly questioned your sources. Also, the phrase "inform my client" used in the deletion discussion is worrying. It looks like you may have an incentive to create this page for, say, PR reasons. Nevertheless, if you feel that the deletion was in error or that you have sources which will establish notability, you can take the matter to WP:DRV. A good example of sources which establish notability are the Nature and Scientist articles in Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program. rhebus (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird Messages on the Geoffrey Holder Page

On the actor Geoffrey Holder (punjab from the 1982 Musical "Annie") page, there is a weird message that appears in red over the text - it says "AVRIL LAVIGNE ROKZ MY SOCKZ! Brought to you by The Avril Troll - On return from Wikibreak!"

I tried going into edit and removing it, but am not sure how. Any help in removing it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.167.209 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such text, and the page hasn't been edited since 26th June. Are you sure you've linked the right page? rhebus (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's template vandalism. There's a thread on AN/I about it, although I'm not convinced that it is being tackled as assiduously as it might be, in part because the vandalism appears (to me) to be visible only to IPs, not logged in readers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

History merge request...

The current Record of Lodoss War page was originally created as Lodoss to Senki way back in 2004, and the latter title is now just a redirect. I was not aware that there was an article history behind the redir, but the redir itself is a mix of English and badly romanized Japanese that isn't useful to users of either language (romanization would be Roudosu tou senki or some variant wth macrons, not Lodoss (which is English) to (which is the wrong word entirely) Senki). That means no one is likely to search for it as such, and therefore it's not really maintaining the article history properly. Could the histories be merged and the redirect deleted? MSJapan (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think history merges are technically possible currently (without database hacking); usually I just copy and paste the old history into the talk page of the new article. Dcoetzee 07:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Err they are posible. Delete move undelete.Geni 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

History merging should be possible per Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, which includes directions on tagging the pages to be merged. As far as I can tell, it was a simple cut-and-paste move done in 2004 followed by a few minor changes to the redirect. I think it should be histmerged unless there's a specific reason to leave it alone. Flatscan (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikify Years or Not?

I thought it was recommended by Wikipedia to wikify years so I've been doing it forever but a bot just removed every year link in this article. Can somebody just clarify whether we are supposed to wikify years or not? Thanks. Fife Club (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the appropriate guideline is WP:CONTEXT#Dates which says "Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it". It's justifiable to link them or not to link them, but I think it's clearly not justifiable to have a bot to change them all to nonlinked. I've left a note on the bot's owner's talk page. rhebus (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm watching your recent conversation on the topic at User_talk:Lightmouse to see how the resolution turns out.

Need help on Bandidos article

I need some help. This article has had an edit/revert war going on (see the history). I created a thread on the talk page, found a more general thread on a talk page, and the user (Proxy user) has fought and even reverted my good-faith edits, not to mention another user's edits. Something needs to be done- I don't know what. Tedder (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented on Bandidos talk page, and sorry to say this but I believe that Proxy User is right here. In any case, you guys (War, Proxy User and you) have already long violated WP:3RR like... over 50 reverts?! — Yurei-eggtart 07:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Xin

Thank you so much if you can help me. Currently the entry 'SOHO China' has a link to 'Zhang Xin', but it is not the right Zhang Xin. I don't know how to create a new disambiguation page, create a new page with info on the correct Zhang Xin and have the link on the SOHO China page go to this instead. If you can help I will be forever grateful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinafundman (talk • contribs) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no Wikipedia article on Zhang Xin the businesswoman, I simply removed the wikilink for Zhang Xin in the article SOHO China. If the businesswoman is more notable than the artist (about whom Wikipedia does have an article), then the existing Zhang Xin article should be renamed Zhang Xin (artist). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, I did what you said and was able to create a page Zhang Xin (businesswoman). I set up the SOHO China page to link to that. However, when I search for Zhang Xin it goes to the Zhang Xin (artist) page. How do I set it up so that it goes to a page with an index of both Zhang Xins? How do I set up the SOHO China page so that it links to the right Zhang Xin without having to tag it as (businesswoman)? Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinafundman (talk • contribs) 07:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your second question, the solution is to use a piped wikilink - see my edit (easier to show an example than to explain, perhaps). Regarding your first, a disambiguation page isn't needed when there are only two articles of roughly the same importance. I've added {{for}} templates to both articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for translation...

It seems, unless I have it wrong, that the Request for Translation pages have been not used since March? I note that the Italian Wiki has an article for whereas we appear not to on the English Wiki. If the RfT pages are down/busy/backlogged, where else to go to get this article created? (and as I know nothing, hence searching for it, I ain't gonna start it!) doktorb _words^deeds 10:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For other options related to translations, see WP:EIW#Translate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

dead link on help page

on this page Help:Contents there is a link under resources to Pages needing attention , but that page says it is not active. is there a better page to link to there instead? I find it really hard to find any of the background pages on how wikipedia works or the lists of things that need work. hope this is the right place to post this question, even. --64.231.9.30 (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions about that page should be posted to Help talk:Contents. As for how Wikipedia works, you might look at the editor's index; for things that need work, see, for example, the topic on "Maintenance". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone to help an article get made better and still neutral

Hi. I'm reasonably new to Wiikipedia and have been editing an article Fire pit because it read like a sales pitch about selling fire pits for the garden. However, I don't know a huge amount about garden-fire-pits, and whilst I've put some information in about fire pits in history, it seems like it's lacking a bit now. Can anyone help me improve the article without it being too short OR an advert for fire pits?

Thanks, Oldandfat (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of WikiProject templates to the article talk page; perhaps that will attract some interest of editors in those WikiProjects. Other than that, all I can do is wish you luck - given the (literally) millions of articles that need expanding, Wikipedia editors pretty much work on what they're interested in, rather than what other editors think needs to be expanded. (In general - don't hesitate to chop out improper stuff from an article - a short article that is of very good quality is more useful to readers than a longer one that has a lot of junk in it. You should just trust that over time, if the topic truly is notable and interesting, other editors will add to it.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nesting an image and a template

Hi folks. I've searched high and low an been unable to find a way to nest or stack the top image and template at Religion in Africa. Everything I try, including the "combi" template, just slides the two boxes horizontaly across the screen, which looks pretty cruddy. Advice? If I figure out a way to do this, I'll submit a Help file for Category:Wikipedia_how-to. T L Miles (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I took a stab at what you requested using {{FixBunching}} but it looks terrible with the table below it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much: I 'll mess about, and see if I can't bang out a mention of this in a Help file somewhere. Cheers, T L Miles (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeola

I came across this lil' article by chance. This is going to sound kind of stupid, I guess, but I can't get right of the article heading (Category:Cities and towns in Maharashtra). I'm completely dead tired right now so maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I did my best. If anyone can help what I did wrong (or more accurate, didn't do), that'd be great. Kind regards and good night, --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure from your post exactly what was wrong but may I assume that when you say you couldn't get right the "article heading", you were referring to the the strange display of [[Category:Cities and towns in Maharashtra]] at the very top of the lead section? If so, I fixed that by removing the wikilinking from the infobox for the state. The infobox template automatically wikilinks the state and places the page into the category, but breaks if you add the brackets on top of its automatic linking. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! That's what I was aiming for. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

When/how can a category name be changed?

Here's the deal: Basel is a major city in Switzerland. It was the capital of the Canton of Basel for a long time. In 1833 that canton was divided in two: Basel-City (including the city of Basel and not much else) and Basel-Country.

WP has categories for Basel-City and Basel-Country. References to the city alone go into the former category. Despite some anachronism in historical articles, this seems fine.

For any major city, WP normally has a category, People from [Name of City]. Basel has People from Basel (city) -- not People from Basel or even People from Basel-City. I assume the (city) parenthesis was an attempt to resolve the confusion about the two Basel cantons. Yet some of the people listed were born in Basel-Country (or elsewhere) and resided in the city throughout their lives (e.g. poet Carl Spitteler). I don't think they should be expelled from the category. I do think (city) should be removed from the end of the category name, if possible, leaving it as People from Basel.

Maybe I don't have to explain why People from Basel seems much preferable to both People from Basel (city) and People from Basel-City. Do I?

So: how is a category renamed? Whom do I ask? Will there be a redirect involved?

FYI, People from Basel (city) has 58 members. There is also a category People from Basel-Country. It has one member, Emil Frey, an important figure in the government of Basel-Country and Switzerland. The category seems to suit him, and it may pick up more members. (I'll add Carl Spitteler. He's "from" both Basel and Basel-Country.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you want WP:Categories for discussion. Algebraist 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgott Password

Estracted from the Wikipedia:Helpdesk

Hi.

I am User:Goiken and predominantly active on other Wikimediaprojekts and forgott my en:wp-Password. My morer recent activities here i did as different IPs. Using now GWatch i'd need again access to my en:wp account. Unfortunately while registrating i didnt provide an email. Is there any way i can reobtain my account or do i need to create another global one. For a Proof, of ID i could Provide my e-Mail or you can considder, that the Methylmalonic acid I edited in en:wp was also created by goiken in es:wp.--85.180.131.51 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're English Wikipedia account is part of your global account, it should have the same password as all your other accounts. If not, it's more complicated (we can't just figure out your password and tell you) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Eventhough it should it doesn't have the same PW for some reason unknown to me. Would it be possible for a high-level-admin to deleate me so that i'll be able to recreate goiken in en:wp and later merge with global goiken?

Can't I be deleated by a special procedure u usually use when fighting vandalism and then be recreated?

Is there a way for anybody to disable The Anti-Autocracking on users so that the Acc can be opened by a brute-force-Bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.131.51 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the CAPTCHA will stay... I suppose it could be disabled for bots, but we don't discuss things like that here: that's our Village Pump's job... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 20:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Any other suggestions?--85.180.131.51 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's my general observation that forgetting your username and being unable to receive a new-password email means the account is lost forever. And that's the way it's meant to be, given the usual difficulty of proving any particular IP is actually the user in question. Also, the usurpation recommended below will probably fail since the acount has a userpage and three edits. But I'd say given the identicalness of your interlanguage userpages, you should be able to convince a bureaucrat with enough effort, although I'm not sure if they'd do this for you. You could also contact a developer, I suppose...But aside from those two groups of users, there's nothing we can do for you. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I already kindly contacted a Steward who didn't reply until now. Can you shortly indicate to me how i can conact a developer? Thanks very much indeed--****

I'd suggest you consider Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. It would possibly get you the name back, but the account history might well be lost (or rather, moved to a new account name). You do not say whether it is the name or the history, or both which are of importance to you, so I cannot deduce whether Usurpation would be appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll try over there. As i did most of my edits here as IP or ****, i am not interested in the user's history. It would only be of value to me to be able to monitor in future all projects in only one single watchlist. This requires access to the account. The watchlist for en:wp i can easyly extract from this account.--****

Disambiguation for Chigger?

If you look at the talk page for chigger, it's been identified that the article is confusing, since it says that "chigger" can refer to either harvest mite or chigoe flea, but continues to offer "myths" and "facts" about chiggers, without specifying which it's referring to. (it looks to me like it refers to the harvest mite)

There's a note at the top of the page saying the article needs to be cleaned up. I think it should just become a disambiguation page, and the "myths" and "facts" merged into the harvest mites article. I'd do it myself, but I'm not really sure about the etiquette of doing something like this, or the appropriate way to make the changes. I'm writing here in the hopes that someone could take a few minutes to implement this?--Randyoo (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing PNG to SVG in an article

The above is a favourite hobby of mine and is usually fairly straightforward (just editing the image link in the article, so long as an SVG exists). However, with this page the PNG seems to be embedded in some template - {{runic}}, I think - but I can't make head nor tail of Template:runic. How do I change the PNG contained within to an SVG? Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't get any other responses, you might try the help desk and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Click the "what links here" on the PNG image page. Then do a manual replace. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

{{runic}} is actually a font template. The template the image is in is Template:Thurisaz_infobox and someone's already replaced the png since after you posted the question. --Random832 (contribs) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation help

Please help! I am new to Wikipedia and not that computer savvy. I am trying to create an entry for William Walter the musician. There is already an entry for William Walter the boxer. When I created the article on William Walter the musician I did it under "William Walter (musician)". So when you type in "William Walter" you get the boxer and nothing else. When someone types in William Walter I think it should link to William Walter the musician or to a page where the reader can select either William Walter the musician or William Walter the boxer. How would I go about doing this? The title for the "William Walter (musician)" should probably be changed to "William Walter" and some disambiguation needs to be done but I have no idea how to do this. Please please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaissancevan (talk • contribs) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a notice on the William Walter page that will direct those who are searching for the musician to the correct page. Generally, disambiguation pages are only necessary when there are more than two subjects with the same name. When there are just two, like in this case, a note at the top of the page is generally sufficient. You can make these notes with a template like this: {{For|the musician|William Walter (musician)}}, which shows up like this:

For the musician, see William Walter (musician).

. I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Parsecboy. How is it determined which William Walter is the default search result when someone types in "William Walter". Is it determined by which William Walter had their entry created first? Shouldn't it be determined by which William Walter is more relevant? I would argue that William Walter the musician is more relevant. He has recorded several successful albums, plays to large crowds across the country, and is still alive. William Walter the boxer lost his one and only boxing match in the Olypics 80 years ago. It seems more reasonable to me to make a search for "William Walter" to link directly to the musician. Is there anything that can be done about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaissancevan (talk • contribs) 04:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made William Walter into a disambiguation page. Algebraist 10:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Which, if the two have vastly different importance (and I don't know that's the case), is a mistake. Better to send a reader directly to an article where there is (say) a 90% chance it's what the reader wanted, then to send the reader to a disambiguation page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought there might be more William Walters out there, correctly as it turns out. William Grey Walter is more important than either of them. Algebraist 11:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In which case a DAB page is just right. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was about to challenge that priority, but I had mistaken William Walter (musician) for William Walton. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Im The Biggest Noob At This. HELP!!

Ive read the tutorials and stuff and of course i took a computer class in school, and never retained any of that class because we screwed around most of the time. Anyway thats besides the point, i want to put a picture on a page im creating, and i just straight up have no clue how to accomplish this. Im an idiot i know. Any help would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will561 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Will561 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Will561

The easiest way would be to have [[Image page|thumb|size px|caption]]. Check out this page for more info. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave a few examples on your talk page (as they would take up a lot of room on here). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Just a quick question here. The MoS says that linking individual years is discouraged unless the link is likely to add insight. However, I find that on most featured bio pages, the dates are linked. What is with the seeming discrepancy here? Mr. IP (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Full dates are linked for autoformating. See MOS:DATE#Date_autoformatting. Rmhermen (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Drive-In Theatres

The referenced category came to my attention today because it was added to a page I'm watching. It shows up as a red link, but when I click on it a category appears with several links; but it shows up looking like it's in 'preview' mode (ie, "Remember that this is only a preview; any changes have not yet been saved!). Can anybody fix this? PKT 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The category page doesn't exist, since no-one has yet created it. It should be Category:Drive-in theatres (or perhaps theaters) anyway. Algebraist 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I created the one Algebraist suggested. I used Template:Commons cat. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But the commons cat doesn't exist. Algebraist 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I used {{Commons cat|Drive-in theatres}}. Is that not commons cat? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It links to a non-existant category at commons. Algebraist 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean. Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple stub categories and templates

Is it acceptable to put multiple stub templates on a stub? I'm writing a new article for a non-profit that is also a restaurant in New Orleans. Should the stub have all three stub templates? Thanks. Eclectek ^{C T} 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to write something on my talk page so I know you've responded. Eclectek ^{C T}

Yes, you can do that. Hut 8.5 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Resolved. Eclectek ^{C T} 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd be a nice feature if multiple stub templates could be consolidated into a single, multi-stub template.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nicer if multiple stub templates did not each contain id="stub" which apparently results in XHTML errors, as all id attributes on a page are supposed to be unique (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 40#ID duplication). — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate

We have two the same articles Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, and Institute for New Testament Textual Research. The first article is an older (13 March 2008), but has wrong title, it should be "Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung". This article in second edition created also link to Institute for New Testament Textual Research ([8]). The purpose of this link is mysterious, but it means his author should be known about the second article. Second article (18 May 2008) has more information. It is better if a long title is in English. Second article has also redirect pages: Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, and INTF.

Of course I am responsible for duplication, but it could be earlier discovered if the first article had correct title ("Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung", but not "Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung"). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

help desk phone

Are there telephone numbers for a help desk at wikipedia?

Not that I know of, but you can visit the help desk and submit inquiries there. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Ka tae prabida kong kappachao tang lai Praong satid eu nai sawan Pranam kong praong jong pen ti sakkara Pra-anajak knog praong ja ma tueng Ko hai tuk sing pen pai tam nampratai Nai paendin muan nai sawan Ko pratan ahan prajam wan kae kappachao tanglai nai wan ni Prod yok tod hai kappachao Muan kappachao yok hai pu uen Ya ploi hai kappachao tuuk prajon Tae prod chuia hai pon pai Amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MsTopeka (talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the English language part of your question, no there are not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Thai language part of your question, that's not a question. :-P --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Marked for quick deletion

I just submitted an article but it got kicked back as copyright infringement. the problem is that the article they are siting, I wrote. It is like stephan king being booted for posting an page from the tommyknockers. Help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmay22 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use content that is copyrighted, even if you wrote it, simply by giving us permission to use it here. We can only use material that is under a free license, such as the GFDL. The reason for this is that all of our content must be able to be redistributed by third parties. You can see this by studying the bottom of any page on Wikipedia which states "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)" Furthermore, given the anonymous nature of online edits, we can only take release of material under a free license by a verifiable method; we have no way otherwise to know that the person who says they are releasing content, holds the copyright, and thus has the authority to release it. So, in order to show us, the person must either:

• Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more detail, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

  The problem you have is that you don't (or at least it appears you don't) hold the copyright to this material—Amazon.com does. I suspect that they allow users to submit write ups on things and that there is an associated legal notice on the submission screen under which users agree that by submitting the material, the copyright is given to Amazon.com. In any event, you would need either to have the amazon page in question have a notice at the bottom changing the license from "© 1996-2008, Amazon.com, Inc." to a GFDL release notice, or send an email/post from an official amazon.com email address or letterhead showing something like that you are an owner/director of that Fortune 500 company and release it. It's not impossible you are one of the top people at Amazon.com with authority to do this, but I think it unlikely. In the absence of such action, this material cannot be used.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, i am not saying I own Amazon.com. What I am saying is that the spot on Amazon.com being referenced is the "about the seller" section that i wrote about the company I work for in our seller account. I could remove tht section from amazon, or alter it. Should I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmay22 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Amazon's conditions of use, posting material to Amazon grants them a license to do whatever they want with it, but does not actually give them the copyright. Thus you still hold copyright over what you wrote, and sending an email to permission-en as Fughettaboutit suggests ought to be ok. Algebraist 13:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have sent the email.--Dmay22 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

German to English translation

Could somebody who speaks German translate the caption in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frerichs_hemozoin_drawings.jpg from German into English

Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I speak mild German, but an online translator gives and output that reads "Frerichs FT (1858) pathological-anatomical Atlas to the hospital of the liver diseases volume I: Hospital of the liver diseases, chapter VIII the pigment liver. Melanämi liver. Changes of the liver with intermittens. 325-368, F. Vieweg and son, Braunschweig" for the summary description. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox history

Hi. Can someone delete the history on my Sandbox? Page is currently blank. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

The only way to have diffs/history removed I believe is through oversight, and that's only for extreme cases. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you outright delete the page instead? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

All you need to do is add the template {{db-self}} to the page; as long as you're the only editor (as is the case here), then an admin will do a courtesy deletion. That still leaves admins able to see what the all the versions of the pages looked like, but I can't imagine any being particularly interested, nor willing to reveal such information - that's why we talk about admins as "trusted users". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted your page per your request. If you ever need access to the deleted revisions, let me know and I can provide you with them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Wiki Page Hacked?

The Montreal page on the English Wikipedia is full of asian characters, large symbols, and a message about "spreading my reign" and "I own this website now"." I'd really recommend looking into it.

-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.249.140 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell as to what you are referring; the Montreal page appears normal to me, and hasn't been edited in 4 days. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism affecting users who are not logged in, I'd guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's template vandalism, which doesn't show up in the history. I've spent ages clearing up after this particular vandal. Hut 8.5 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback page inactive?

I've started a discussion on what appears to be a well intentioned, but ineffective page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback#Is this page still active? (Suggesting tag historical). Even the response to that is tame, so I'd appreciate some additional comments on the best way to proceed. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that it is inactive to the point of ineffectiveness, or that it overlaps with WP:PR, then you can bring it to WP:MFD to see what the community thinks. There is always a possibility that new interest will be generated. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry or the delay in responding. I think I'm stuck between making an effort towards recruitment, which I worry might be temporary, or just conceding that it isn't really that popular. I wasn't sure about MFD because I'm not really proposing it for deletion, just historical, but yeah that is the most likely to get a lot of feedback. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In the past I've tried posting replies to items on RfF, but I don't always get a response. That could be a disincentive for some. I suspect that many of the postings to RfF would be as well served by the many WikiProject talk pages. The PR page seems like a better focal point for improving articles.—RJH (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Retroactively obscuring IP address

Hopefully I'm posting this at the right place. My concern is with someone finding my offline identity through pages I have edited, before creating an account at wikipedia. On these pages' history, my IP address appears, associated with the edit.

I have created an account today, and would like to know if I can have this account listed as the user responsible for those past edits, rather than my real IP address. My apologies if this has been answered before; this is a time-sensitive issue which I feel needs to be addressed for my "offline" safety. Thanks in advance Pokeysmotter (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC) pokeysmotter

Nope, contributions histories cannot be merged. Sometimes an admin will selectively delete a revision with an IP edit, but that is on a case by case basis. I suggest you email User:Oversight for more advice. MBisanz ^talk 14:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Best bet would be to change your editing habits so that nobody associates you with the old edits (and hope that the old edits don't attract attention in themselves). Listings on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit don't really get done anymore, and in any case that would publicise the relationship between you and the old IP, which is hardly what you want. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be an avenue for private requests of this nature. — CharlotteWebb 12:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dental Technologists Association Council

During newpage patrol, I ran across the article on the Dental Technologists Association Council. It seems to me to be far too much detail on the members for something that should in my opinion be a tiny page saying who they are and what they do, but I don't really know what to tag it as. Any opinions? --Slashme (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh. I would suggest using {{Unencyclopedic}} and {{fancruft}}. PKT 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of those tags. On the talk page, suggest that, if notable, the council members be split into daughter articles. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"If" is the key word. PKT 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd recommend talking to the user first, tagging a distant second. I have left a robust note on the user's talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll continue to observe this to see how it pans out. --Slashme (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup. We'll give the user in question a few days grace - I'm not online until sometime next week. If he does not do the decent thing, then I shall take my drill and attack the caries... --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a {{Dental Technologists Association}} in use on that article too, might need an extraction if those biographies don't become full articles? :-P --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I suggested that template needed to be removed in my note to Cleftlip. Odd that he has such a good grasp of the stricture, form & tools of wikipedia, and so little regard for notability policy/guidelines. Rather sad, that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Some kinds of new user quickly get up to speed with the technical "how-to", but I think it's OK to jump in and pick up policy as you go (isn't there a page on that in projectspace somewhere?). Obviously they do need to actually pick things up! :-P Of course, the editor's conflict of interest makes it harder for him to judge the notability as well. Wait and see what happens, he might shape up fine! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see the "council" page is now redirected to the "association" page, which has a list of the council members, which I think is just fine. By the way, you guys have some WP:TEETH ;-> --Slashme (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

recommend url for blocking...

Hi,

Please see contributions from User:58.8.44.217 and User:58.8.34.65. they all promote the url nationmultimedia.com. is there some way to prevent a url from being posted on wikipedia

Cheers

Chirag

15:59, 25 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiragPatnaik (talk • contribs)

That URL appears to be a newspaper in Thailand, and not a small one at that. As such, it appears to be a reliable source, even if a couple of editors are adding spam links. We don't block URLs that can be reliable sources. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Table sorting issue

I need some help in sorting tables for the article: Amateur radio frequency bands in India. The columns "Frequency" and "Wavelength" do not sort properly. If I do a sort on the frequency, the column contents sort on the value of the first digit. If I sort on wavelength, the sorting cannot recognize the difference between metres and centimetres. Are there any solutions? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably use a hidden sortkey, as described in Help:Sorting. Algebraist 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

References in Foreign Language

(reposted here as language section reply was try village pump) Is the use of Foreign Language References acceptable as several articles are getting into revert battles with a poster who has put up a string of references in Russian to justify additions to the article edits. As 95% + of the English Language Wikipedia will not Read rusian the validity of such refs is questionable. see here for Articles; History_of_steam_road_vehicles Pipeline_transport History_of_the_automobile and associated talk pages, posted by user Special:Contributions/79.176.154.152 Related article also have posts by a user now blocked. (The main Question is about the use of references that are in other languages in an en language site )- BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Said editor has also posted the links on my talk, claiming POV for reverting per guideline on websites (& being in Russian), suggesting I "get a life". My reply is on the IP talk & here. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CITE#Sources in different languages and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. If the problem persists after these are pointed out, you might try WP:EA. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Greyhound dog anxiety and eating problems

I'm a pet sitter and have been petsitting two greyhounds now for over six [6] months and have never had a problem with these dogs eating for me. Recently they refused to eat and it was suspect that the food might be a problem. Knowing dogs as I do it seemed they might miss their owner and decided not to eat as a child might not eat as a protest. If anyone has a greyhound and reads and has had similiar behaviors please would you respond - because unless these dogs start eating while their owner is away I'll be out of a job. Thank you for any knowledge/feedback you may have on anxiety seperation and how it affects these gentle dogs. Thank you in advance. Jean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanfurs (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing Special:Statistics?

I'd like some internal links to be added to the text in the Special:Statistics page. Namely, I would like:

" This number excludes redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, and pages for Wikipedia administration. Including these, we have 14,025,995 pages. "

to be replaced with:

" This number excludes redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, and pages for Wikipedia administration. Including these, we have 14,025,995 pages. "

- except keep the code behind the number, of course. If anyone could do that (and/or explain how it can be done, so that I know for future reference), then that would be very much appreciated. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's controlled by MediaWiki:Sitestatstext (MediaWiki pages can only be edited by admins). You could ask on its talk page, or maybe an admin will respond here...Someguy1221 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post a message over there - but was there any way for me to find out what the template was called myself? It Is Me Here (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You can look at Special:AllMessages to find a particular system message. Careful, as it's a large page. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just what I was looking for! It Is Me Here (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A small public service

Ever had a discussion with people who acted as if wiki-consensus could overrule the law? Well if you've reached wit's end with that, here's a reality check you're welcome to deploy. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing Copyright status

I don't know how to change the copyright status of this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kotkapuramap.jpg I'm pretty sure it's safe as I got it from the government website http://faridkot.nic.in/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "safe" - but a lot of governments do not automatically release their documents into the public domain; I'm not sure what India does. (The U.S. federal government, for example, doesn't copyright its documents).

As for changing the copyright status, notice that in this message, on the image page, that "copyright license tag" is a link:

This image or media does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted after Thursday, 7 August 2008. Please remove this template if a copyright license tag has been added.

That link shows you what tags are available. Copy the appropriate one, then - at the image page - just click the "edit this page" tab, and add the tag. And you can then remove the warning template.

If you have further questions, you might try Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Article about a debate

An editor suggests here that an article be split into two articles. He claims that the article is unencyclopedic, and should be split into articles that don't pass judegement. The article is about a debate and is framed as such. I'm afraid splitting the article would just lead to duplicate content in several articles. I am wondering what your opinions are on the subject? SharkD (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the process for resolving content disputes. This page isn't the right place to ask for editors to comment on such a dispute. (Also note that, in general, no single editor should act unilaterally with respect to a controversy over content, if such action will not help resolve the lack of consensus.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, if there is enough to justify/substantiate two articles, it probably should be split into two. It's possible for them to stand alone without significant overlap, and if it ever came to that point, the articles could be re-merged. My advice would be to try a WP:RFC first. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Policy question - are someone's recent images (eg, photo or website image) "out of copyright" because the thing that was photographed was created by someone who died over 100 years ago?

Example 1: File:SaintNinian.jpg - copied from this external web page - yes, the original creator is long-dead, but this is a copy of someone's photograph, not a copy of the original, and that photograph belongs to the creator of the photograph, and we can't use it without permission. Right?

Example 2: File:Y Gogledd.jpg - copied from this external web page - yes, the book is over 100 years old, but this isn't a copy from the book; this is a copy of someone's photograph of the book, and that photograph belongs to the creator of the photograph, and we can't use it without permission. Right?

There are a number of similar examples. Thanks in advance. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

These aren't a problem. See Wikipedia:Public domain#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain. Faithful copies of public domain images are themselves in the public domain. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That answers the question. Thank you. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

trying to make AFD for List of Brazilian football transfers 2008

So I'm trying to make an AFD for the above page, List of Brazilian football transfers 2008 , but I think it's too big for my browser tosave the form with the AFD template, it's 280K. Can anyone see if they can get it moving? Aaronw (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it went through finally... Sorry for the bother. Aaronw (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a PNG with an SVG

I recently replaced File:Edible_toxicity_icon.png with File:Edible_toxicity_icon.svg in Template:Mycomorphbox, but I then saw that it is still the PNG which shows up on Russula caerulea which uses the {{Mycomorphbox}} template. I am somewhat puzzled as to why this should be and would like some help with fully integrating the SVG in the aforementioned template. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The image was only changed in the documentation section. It is hard to implement before all types are available as SVG. The relevant code is: File:{{{howEdible}}}_toxicity_icon.png. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll wait for some more SVGs to be created first, then. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason the template couldn't include an optional parameter to specify an explicit complete image name. I suggest that be done for cases like these. Dcoetzee 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 08:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

something wrong in celine dion.

Resolved

 – Darkspots (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

I am a new register from china.I am not so farmiliar with this website.So I always think It's impossible for me to delete some data as a common user .So I do a atempt .I was astonished that I deleted some data in celine dion.not much.But it still missed something.please help.could you restore it once again.thank you so much.I will take a look at the user tutorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luyan1985 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits—no harm done. Thanks for letting us know. Darkspots (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How strange?

User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs is a student in robotics at Georgia Tech. He is originally from Beijing. He came here, according to his bio, in 2000 at age 12. I think that makes him 19 now. He posted a robotics template in the discussion page of an article I started in May of 2007. I made the mistake of clicking on the link in the template and then answering his questions, discussing my work and then providing him with links to my articles on the Wikia without learning more about him. He said that he disagreed with my Wikia articles and without warning posted a nomination for deletion on my Wikipedia article page instead of a reference tag or a not notable tag, or any other tag that might have given me time to deal with the problem. All of the sudden, wham there was the deletion tag. No warning. Next thing I know in the deletion discussion where I was trying to defend myself and the article in great haste, he accused me of a personal attack when in reality he was attacking me through the nomination for deletion. Next, - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} joined the deletion discussion but strangely in the role of "good cop." I recall seeing his user signature on User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs's talk page. Other users joined the deletion discussion and next thing I know a couple of days later the article was deleted. This morning I finally had some time for a recap and to do a little research.

First thing. User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs is posting his robotics template to a lot of discussion pages. Someone needs to check this out and see what Wang is up to. I'm sure he will have a good excuse.

{{WikiProject Robotics|nested=no|class=C|importance=mid}}

Second thing. I asked Henrik I Christensen, Director, Robotics and Intelligent Machines at Georgia Tech if he knew why User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs would be back stabbing me, claiming my article was a hoax and Henrik replied:

"I am sorry that you have been attacked for an article in Wikipedia. I do not have any students named Jiuguang Wang, so this is really not a matter that I can address. - Henrik"

Third thing. I thought, "How strange?", when User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs is editing the Wikipedia article about Henrik I. Christensen. Anybody have any idea what is going on?

Julie Dancer (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - first of all, you were already given a final warning not to make further personal attacks after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification. I believe this thread here constitutes not only a personal attack, but also harassment, and I will report it to WP:ANI. Also, I don't understand why Henrik I. Christensen is involved in this - I have not once claimed any relations with him (other then being at the same school), and knowing him personally is not a prerequisite for starting/editing his article. I have contributed to dozens of biographies on known control theorists and roboticists here on Wikipedia (see User:Jiuguang Wang/Contributions), and I have never meet most of these people. --Jiuguang (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you attacked her instead of the other way around and that now you are harassing her by having one of your administrator buddies to block her so she can not answer back. All of this is being watched from the outside. If you are in fact a Chinese Communist you might want to consider that now would be a great time for you and any of your comrades to leave. Clem 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you are both harassing Jiuguang, and I advise you to leave him alone. We must judge editors on the basis of their contributions, and judge deletion arguments on the basis of their merit, rather than the motives of the person making them. We must make content decisions about articles on the basis of their merits and not the motivations of their proponents. Regardless of whether Jiuguang is actually a robotics student, or a communist, that only matters to the extent that they exploit their qualifications to win edit wars, or push a communist POV, neither of which I believe is occurring. Dcoetzee 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He read Julie's Wikia articles and then did the nomination for deletion to harass her. That is what is obvious. Read her articles and the reference to her article she cited and then you will see. She has the right to defend herself which you are not letting her do. He is making a lot of people on the outside of the Wikipedia in the real world upset with him. If you had worked up to deletion by posting a not notable tag or a no original research tag and have warned her and been courteous to her and given her time to repair then what you have said might have been true but treating her the way you did, trying to drive her to suicide like the girl that women set up on My Space. If you people are Communists and this is what is behind what you are doing then I can not stress enough how many people you have made angry. You need to stop. I hope you hear me. Clem 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kadiddlehopper ("Clem") has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet of User:Julie Dancer. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop "julie" from recreating her article, and ensuring this time that it is well refereced. That would seem to take less effort than mounting a string of absurd & ridiculous ad hominem attacks which serve only to fatally damage her reputation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be true if you fail to consider that no one so much as posted a suggestion on the discussion page, much less Heaven forbid edited the article themselves. Even a reference tag or a not notable tag would have given her some help or some warning. The only real issue was that the reference she gave was not fully opened and expanded or wikified, which any user could have done. The claim of original research is what was absurd and the deletion amounted to nothing more than an entomologist finding a new bug he had personally never seen and stepping on it for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.22 (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it appears User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs is fixing up his own user page to cover all of the things (like religion) he has rejected, skipped and dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.12.48 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

|}

For heavens sake, grow up and stop bleating about your deleted article and leave Jiuguang Wang alone. If the article was not OR, it can be recreated. Articles are deleted because there is community consensus to delete, not merely because Wang thought deletion was the right action. Sometimes articles are deleted when they could be saved; or are deleted in error. WP:DELREV is then your friend, or else recreation of a fixed article. HARRASSING AN INDIVIDUAL USER IS NOT EVER ACCEPTABLE. Whingng that "no one so much as posted a suggestion on the discussion page, much less Heaven forbid edited the article themselves" is a) not a reason why the article cannot be recreated and b) wallowing in self-pity. Really. Shit happens. Get over it. Move on. Above all, stop taking it out on another user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article?

Hi,

I came across The First Fifty-One while doing newpage patrol. I am uncomfortable with its name (not descriptive enough) and its content (but I'm not quite sure why). I tagged it as needing wikification, but I'm not really sure what's wrong with it. What should I have done? --Slashme (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a "list-stub" too. There is probably some information that can be added about the group in general; merely listing the members probably falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Who knows something about the region's history? Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan might be able to do something with it. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I did some (very) rudimentary tidying and added their WikiProject tag and stub-tag. Turns out only three of the names have articles, but maybe the others are under another name (or deserve to exist but nobody's done it yet). Oh, and there are fifty-two names in that list, for reasons which escape me. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that none of the 51 (or 52) have articles. The three names with blue links are for other people with similar names, and should be disambiguated. PKT 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There - done. PKT 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How did you check which ones have articles? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I only checked which of the names had articles, by the simple expedient of wikilinking them and seeing which ones turned blue! :-D As User:PKT says, it seems those articles are not for the same people. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, guys! I'm still amused that there are fifty-two in the first fifty-one. I never noticed that. Interestingly, this book also refers to 51 voyageurs. Maybe this should simply be moved to "List of Cadillac's first voyageurs"? I'll propose the move on that page. --Slashme (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice on potential dispute

Dear all. I'm asking for advice on a potential dispute, that I do not believe requires intervention yet, but on which I would like advice.

Basically, I've sometimes been frustrated in my contributions to Wikipedia, and what's happened today is probably the clearest example of the kind of problems I have. Note, at this stage I do not consider this a real dispute and am not asking for resolution. What I am asking for is guidance as to whether I am handling this situation properly.

The general problem I've had is reverts to my contributions, when I believe that those contributions are valid for the topic. My current example is in editing the page Open water swimming. This term refers, in my knowledge, to both competitive and non-competitive swimming in outdoor locations (lakes, rivers, sea). I noticed that the previous page on Open Water Swimming was solely (apart from a very general first sentence) about competitive open water swimming. So I edited the page slightly. I added a picture of a person (oh, alright then, it's me) swimming in a river, and added links down to the bottom of the page to the (UK) River and Lake Swimming Association, and the Outdoor Swimming Society (also UK). Both of these are established organisations and I believe relevant to the topic. Yes, I am a member of the former, but only link to the organisation when I believe the link is highly relevant to the topic.

However, as often happens, my edits were reverted. The reason given for reversion was that the new topic was not relevant to the article. I have reverted those changes. And accidentally added a second picture as when I saw there was no picture the next morning, I assumed that I hadn't put one up. I didn't notice the undo until later.

OK, that's the background. Now, this is not yet a dispute. But whenever I've been in this situation in the past, there's been a short "edit war" and I've given up. I do have too much going on in my life to waste it on little arguments.

What I have done this time is this:

1. Undone the changes. (And, by accident, added another picture).

2. Edited the talk page for the topic, raising the issue of scope.

3. Posted a calm and I hope friendly description of my side of the dispute. User_talk:Deiz

4. Raised this issue on several swimming related forums, asking people to contribute to the discussion on the talk page.

I imagine that unless the dispute automatically disappears (which in my past experience only happened once), then I will need to gather evidence that the term "Open water swimming" covers recreational swimming as well as competitive, and potentially

What I ask people to do is:

1. Tell me whether I have followed correct procedures so far, mention anything I've done that I shouldn't have done. Things I should have done differently, etc.

2. Advise on potential future actions that can be taken if the dispute does not resolve.

3. In particular, I would like advice on situations where a term has a linked article is particularly narrow in scope. I would assume that it's not the case that whoever writes the article first gets first dibs on the definition, and can enforce that, suppressing other definitions of the word or phrase.

Ross-c (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the societies that you mention are notable, why not first create pages for them, with suitable references. Get input from people who are interested in the topic to check them out, so that you are sure that they're not going to be deleted, and then you will have a strong case to put your edits back into the open water swimming article. --Slashme (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Having had a look at: Notability_(organizations_and_companies), I believe that both are notable, as they are both quite frequently mentioned in major national newspapers. Including special supplements on open water swimming. I would be hesitant to immediately create pages for these organisations, though I will now go off and email people from both organisations suggesting that pages are created. While I'm aware of "conflict of interest" guidelines etc., I would not feel it proper for me to create such pages without their significant input and agreement. Ross-c (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird. The editor who removed my new content previously edited the page. See this link (not sure how to Wiki-ise it. link to edits of the page

This edit removed text saying that the page was solely about competitive swimming. I think I've worked out what the problem is. The page, incorrectly, classifies open water swimming as swimming in large bodies of water. It seems that the editor removed my picture because he believes that the Cam isn't large enough to fit the definition. When, I can confidently state, it's the definition that's wrong rather than the picture! Now, that doesn't explain why the links were removed. However, I suspect that this was just carelessness on the part of the editor. He (I think it's a he) just reverted changes without checking what was deleted. If this is the case, then first I presume I wait for a response from the editor clarifying their position. Then if there's still a dispute, I collect information (of which I already know there is plenty) showing that the definition of open water swimming on the page was wrong, and then fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, we have a straightforward edit war here. The article has been reverted again. The links to the River and Lake Swimming Association and the Outdoor Swimming Society have been removed again. The pictures of me swimming, one in the River Cam, and the other in Windermere, have been removed with the, I believe, frankly ridiculous claim that they don't show swimming !!!!. There is a comment "No authorative sources". What on earth is going on here. How am I supposed to produce an "authorative source" of a picture of someone swimming? What would this source be? Ross-c (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is probably the wrong place to discuss this, but I agree that the image is poor enough that it should be removed - it is near impossible to see the swimmer at thubnail size. Harsh as it might seem, a poor image is IMO worse than no image at all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that can be solved. For example, the picture can be cropped. Or, perhaps more suitably, I can select another picture as I only have about 500 such swimming pictures. A comment such as yours is constructive. Because you point out something about the picture that is a problem, without diving in an just deleting it with no adequately explained reason. And you focus on something that is a problem, rather than just suggesting that all changes I made be deleted. I added two pictures, you criticised one. Someone has removed that one for the same reason, and I've started more discussion on the talk page about what pictures would be best. I think the first photo (still there as I write now) with has me full body is a much better picture of recreational open water swimming. So if you had been the editor looking at the page, I would have said "OK, how about I delete the second picture. The first picture does for recreational swimming, and I can take a photo at a triathlon club training session to represent competitive open water swimming until I can get a photo at a race". You might then have opinions on that, and after some to and fro-ing, we'd have a better page. That's how I believe Wikipedia should work. But at present I'm just getting photos deleted with a stated reason that they don't show swimming, where in both cases, more clearly in the first, there I am swimming. Note that if you read this whole history, the second photo was added by accident sortof as I didn't notice the reversion.

I have proposed a truce on the page. I'll see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I should give up. It seems that the person doing the editing is a big-wig in Wikipedia. They have said that I have until 9am until tomorrow to undo my edits and apologise (for saying that the full reversion of edits was vandalism - strong I admit, but I'm not undoing the edits). I'm threatened with forced reversion to the previous (incorrect) version, and a lock. In other words, he is going to use his admin "big stick" to enforce the previous incorrect information. I've been discussing things with him on his talk page, but he's getting more and more ... strange. He's claiming that the first picture was of someone in a shallow stream. When it's the River Cam and quite deep. Certainly well over my head. And so on. The discussion is on his talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deiz#Re:_Open_water_swimming —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. First thing: Everyone relax, as this is turning into something really silly and unnecessary. Deiz feels that the picture is not indicative of the concept, and I'd have to agree; to me, open water is lakes, the ocean, etc., and the picture looks like a relatively small river. It's not illustrative of the idea of open water. The page as it stands is virtually unsourced and needs a lot of work. I'm going to suggest that you, Ross-c, and Deiz both back away from the article for the moment, stop throwing accusations back and forth, and give it a break. Ross-c, if you have a better photo illustrating actual open water - away from the bank, or something - propose it on the talk page. DOn't continue to re-insert the picture. Discuss, don't edit-war. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be very happy to work out a procedure by which things are clarified. I have proposed a truce. But it was ignored. I don't believe that Deiz wants to work constructively on the page. I mix with people involved with open water swimming all the time, and do know that my definition is correct. I have checked this with knowledgeable people. I've looked for and found definitions on websites of relevant organisations. I'm prepared to have calm and friendly discussions with people who would like to work on the definition. But this is not happening. I feel that I'm unreasonably expected to take the photo and changes out, while it could equally be said that Deiz should leave them in. At worst, he could discuss his issues on the talk page and perhaps work out a method of resolution. But no, I'm told to revert the changes myself "or else". I have asked for a third opinion through the official Wikipedia page. I'm hoping that this would be enough to start things along a more productive path. But we'll see. Ross-c (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Yes, the page is unsourced and in an appalling state. Experienced open water swimmers (much more so than I) have commented that it's missing a lot of information, for example, safety information. I feel that I'm exactly the kind of person who could build up a page like this. Not necessarily because I have all the knowledge myself, but because I know who to ask. But a lot of the information on open water swimming from a recreational view will come from the organisations that Deiz considers not notable enough to mention. So where from there?

As for the photo, I've got a training session tomorrow. I thought of being sarcastic and taking my zoom camera, and swimming riiiiggghtttt out into the dead centre of the lake and have someone snap me doing 100% pure front crawl as that what the relatively uninitiated see as swimming. But I would prefer to work on the article in a more constructive manner.Ross-c (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PPS. Sorry, I had to think about this, not being used to it being discussed reasonably. I would say that the photo is the least of the problems. The removal of the links to RALSA, and the OSS, are the most important change, as both of these organisations have vital information on their sites. Particularly importantly, information concerning safety in open water swimming. I believe the OSS site gives some information on safety but mainly (unless it's been edited since I looked) links back to RALSA. The RALSA safety information is very frequently referenced in newspaper articles on open water swimming. I do believe that the definition is too narrow, but this could be solved by discussing different interpretations of the word. And certainly the dispute concerning the definition of open water swimming shouldn't prevent the inclusion of the links. As both of those organisations cover everything right up to huge lakes formally, and more informally. Ross-c (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm redirecting participants of this discussion to the Talk:Open water swimming page. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo

Hi,

Can someone offer me advice on:

• Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#Self_Published_Sources_in_Biographies

• Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#WP:NPF_enforcement__relief

It's time for me to take a break, I've been proceeding as best I can. Your advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, ZuluPapa5 Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The best place to ask for personal advice is probably WP:EA. If you want to get other editors involved in discussing changes to the article (as opposed to personal advice about what you should do next), the best place to read about your options is WP:DR. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to Special:Newpages but a few pages in?

I have recently been on Special:Newpages a lot, partly to add speedy delete templates where necessary, and partly do look for potential WP:DYK candidates. However, I always turn bot and patrolled edits off and have 500 results per page. On top of that, I like to browse Special:Newpages starting at page 2 or 3 so as to try to avoid speedily deleting pages that have just appeared and which might consequently still be under construction. However, when I copy the URL of such a page - for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&offset=20080801212507&limit=500&hidepatrolled=1&hidebots=1 - and paste it again after a while, I can see that it sticks to the same range of results rather than a particular page of results on Special:Newpages; i.e. the range of articles it shows is static and not dynamic, unlike the main Special:Newpages page itself.

My question, then, is this: is it possible to have a URL which takes you straight to page 2, say, or page 3 of Special:Newpages with the filters which I have indicated above applied, and which consequently shows the current second or third page of Special:Newpages and automatically updates itself? If so, please post that URL here!

Thanks in advance.

It Is Me Here (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest trying WP:VPT, given the lack of responses here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks It Is Me Here (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Policing Wikipedia

I have been using Wikipedia for 2 years as a reader but signed up in order to police it. I am looking for some tips/ easy ways to police it rather than keep checking the recent changes page. Check my contributions page to know how sincere I am about this! Andvd (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Anandvd

Well, if you can always go here and refresh it, to look for new user contribs that might be vandalism. Or, you can go here and patrol new pages, that might need deletion. Synergy 10:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism has a lot of useful information, including tools to help you with your efforts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pamela Dalton

Another user and I had a small altercation about the notability of this person. Could someone please check the sources to see if the guidelines are satisfied, and post findings on the talk page? Thanks a bunch. .seVer!Ty^- (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to bring this question to the reliable sources noticeboard. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)