User talk:Aakheperure

Welcome!

Hello, Aakheperure! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Adoption

Hello, welcome to wikipedia, if you are interested I offered you adoption. Just let me know on your talk page if you agree, in other case ignore this message. Petrb (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please adopt me. I have read lots of help pages but I'm not very good with the syntax and am not sure how to get help that actually allows me to contribute more actively. Thanks for responding! Aakheperure (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Documenting Film, Television, Stage and Radio

Where is the best place to find a guide to demonstrate the standard format to record the work of a performer who has worked across a variety of media? Aakheperure (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, I've seen you added some table to the article but it was reverted, the links were not added correctly, you should not add direct links to the articles, external links should be places to special section on the end of article. Petrb (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• The 3 pages I referred to on your talk page for review all look the way I left them. Which is a relief because had they been reverted again after I've tried so hard to get it right I was going to give up on Wikipedia as simply too complex! It took me hours to compete the table!

Since no one seems to know how to answer my query I will just keep going and hope someone else can fix the formatting later if they aren't "Wiki" enough. I'm finding it hard to access how articles should be set out. Wikipedia constantly tells users that there are standards for articles but I can't seem to find any that are relevant to the articles I am working on in terms of how they should be set out... I am being more careful with links. Hopefully I will get them right eventually. Aakheperure (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is the WP:Manual of style and other pages linked from there; Help:Wiki markup; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables) and Help:Tables; or another approach is to look in the lists of WP:Featured Articles and WP:Good articles for any which are about performers with similar careers, and see how they handle the problem. JohnCD (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the useful links. I'm a total newbie and very confused about how things should be done here. Finding the information has been difficult as I don't know my way around. Because coding is such a strenuous exercise for me, I would rather do it right the first time, or as close to it as possible to avoid lengthy replication. The link to the WP:Good articles looks like what I was after. Aakheperure (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You can start a sandbox for it. Petrb (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know how to start a sandbox... Aakheperure (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For begining you could start with WP:Userspace there is described how to start such in own space and description of spaces Petrb (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I don't understand that page. But I did see that I am not supposed to write page drafts in sub-pages, so I am using a text file to re-write an article to make it more like the ones listed on WP:Good articles. Aakheperure (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work, thanks!

		The Exemplary Adoptee Barnstar
		I believe that at least the first article (you call it draft, I call it potential good article candidate) is ready to be moved, others are also very nice for your work I award you with this!

Petrb (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow on

I wanted to tell you some interesting things regarding Ahmed Khaled Towfik, I am going to revisit it later when I have more time. Mostly just observing. Any way it is certainly plagiarism, but a reverse case. Looking at this site you will notice where they attribute "Just Nour created this page Saturday, October 24, 2009". I noticed when checking the image file; 21:23, 5 July 2008 as the date of our upload. When I checked the Wikipedia version on the date prior to October 24, 2009 you will see that it is our content which was copied. Now if any of the prose you removed thinking it was a violation, were particularly strong, you can add it back. Or you can leave it as it is if you think it is improved. I will have a chance to look at it later, but I think everything is ok for now. Cheers My76Strat 04:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure which text had been appropriated, I will cease editing until I understand this situation better. The wiki entry does need citations though, the ones I added will now be incorrect if the site we were looking at was a copy of the wiki article so they will all need to be reverted. I did not "remove" much, I simply reworked into better English and attempted to reference.
  • That is a good point. I am not sure this subject rises to notability guidelines. If you are familiar with the subject or believe it is notable, better references should be included. The mirrored wiki content can not serve as a reference. My76Strat 06:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with the subject, it was suggested to me by the bot so I don't know how famous this author is with respect to others in his field or in general. Probably best to revert it, albeit with more consistent spelling of his name. I don't know how to do that though. It was a bit of a gamble for me to take up editing that page. It didn't pay off. I should have asked more questions before editing I guess. Perhaps I will be more successful elsewhere. Aakheperure (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Valentin Varlamov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on

• You are really good in editing why you give up just because of one case of stolen draft? As I said it's possible to preview it even if you edit it in notepad. Petrb (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Two drafts taken, actually, which equates to 2/3 of my articles! I understand you are trying to be encouraging but I doubt if you truly understand how many hours it takes me to construct text, nor how difficult it is for me. It took a while to get my work back in both cases; the experience was so stressful I was not able to edit afterwards for some time. I have to make realistic decisions about my work here; about what I can and cannot do. I would like to write. I would not like to continue to experience the stress caused by interference with my works in progress. I edit in TextEdit now, but how can I preview it without putting it on a user page and exposing myself to vandalism or harassment? What alternatives are there? Aakheperure (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, I merely obeyed a routine history-merge request. See User talk:TheArticleWizardsApprentice and User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Question. Which were the two stolen articles? Was User talk:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft one of them? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have moved the draft back to where it should be.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft is back where it should be. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• So. This is three times so far. How long have I been here? How many articles have I attempted to write? Do I get some kind of medal for this? Can my pages be put under protection for a while so I have a chance to actually finish something without it being stolen incomplete? Aakheperure (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything like stolen draft it's still on your userpage and anytime it get moved I will put it back if you want. Petrb (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• You don't see anything Petrb because two other editors dealt with the matter. From your comment - which seems to belittle the issue - it is not even clear to me that you read the discussion above. Perhaps it is the language barrier, but I'm sorry. I can't work like this. You might be able to, but I can't. I have not received any practical advice (yet) about how to deal with this. Why couldn't Wikipedia have a "protected" area to negate issues like this? The user targeting me obviously knows what he is doing and will hardly be slowed down by the measures that have been taken. Such a pity he can't find pleasure and self worth in helping others rather than causing them distress. Still, he may find wisdom one day. Aakheperure (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you are having trouble with a blocked editor. Most editors know and understand that user drafts should be left alone and do not copy work. The users who are stealing your articles are actually just one person pretending to be multiple people. If you come across any more copies of your draft you can add {{db-g5}} to the copy. As the person who is stealing your drafts is blocked and not supposed to be editing, a administrator will see the tag and delete the copy. I hope that helps you, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 06:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your concern. I have thought about this carefully and have decided not to write any more articles. By the time I see that there is a problem with my drafts they are long gone, being deleted from my user space, claimed by someone else and sometimes being further edited by others in the main space; so adding these tags (what does that tag even mean?) would not be much help to me. I will most likely delete the drafts in the next few days because I just don't feel I can continue to contribute. I may retain an account to copy edit occasionally. I have not yet decided. Aakheperure (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the sockpuppet got an article of mine this morning and published it as his. The first one I've ever done. Ah, well. That's life. It's out there now and I'll watch and edit it. Hang in there, it's just part of the deal.  :) Wikipelli ^Talk 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation feedback

Hello Aakheperure, thank you for your feedback at the Articles for Creation feedback page. To answer your question, the instructions are in the Article Wizard. If you use the Wizard it goes through the reviewing process. As yours was a userspace draft it skips most of it. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article was created via the wizard actually. The code still resides on the article in the main space. Aakheperure (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article Wizard has the option to use the Articles for Creation process or to simply create a draft in userspace. Userspace drafts are not reviewed by reviewers unless asked. Whereas in Articles for Creation submissions are reviewed, feedback is given, and we help the submitter through the process. Do you think this should be clarified in the wizard? Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Any clarification of any procedure on Wikipedia would be welcomed by new editors. There are too many options, terms are not explained, new users are faced with page after page of convoluted "help" files that do not identify procedures in a clear manner; rather they describe what things are (ie a Wikipedia entry) as opposed to actually doing anything. It is usually only by accident that I find information I need. Even when this occurs and I follow the procedure I am usually told I have done it incorrectly or that there is a "better" way. I'm not really surprised the number of editors is declining; only the 'oldbies' know how anything works, and new users are targeted by vandals. If Wikipedia is to survive as a useful entity, these issues will need to be looked at. Aakheperure (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards to editing without people stealing your articles..

Hi, I seen your message on IRC but didn't get a chance to reply before you logged off. It seems like you've become a random target of a bad user whose intent is to disrupt Wikipedia. It's the same person who has stolen your article drafts more than once, he's just creating multiple accounts under different usernames (sockpuppetry). Rest assured that all his accounts are now blocked and any future accounts will be quickly identified and blocked as well. Please understand that this is not a regular occurrence on Wikipedia and it seems you've just had a stroke of really bad luck. -- œ^™ 09:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a notice. He struck again, but this time to someone else. I've made others aware of the problem at the Administrators noticeboard. -- œ^™ 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, saw your message in IRC. I have added very visible warnings on the two drafts. Hope that will stop other editors from trying to move it if they see it copied elsewhere by malicious users. Hoping it doesn't happen again. Cheers.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting user pages

I would like to delete or remove the pages that have caused me so much grief over the last few weeks, but am not sure how to go about it. WP states I cannot leave my work "indefinitely" on a user page: I cannot guarantee I will compete these articles; I cannot code quickly and my editing style is not conducive to WP so under these guidelines the drafts should be removed.

I do not want them to be moved into the main space incomplete.

I have removed the references to them from my user page, which I think I was supposed to do but am not sure. Please advise me. Aakheperure (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You can get any of your user sub-pages deleted by putting {{db-userreq}} (or {{db-u1}} which is shorter) at the top. The next passing admin will delete them. But when that guideline says "indefinitely" it means many months; if you are thinking only in terms of weeks there is no problem. Alternatively, you can always keep a copy for yourself: click "edit" on the page, then "select all" and "copy", and save into Notepad or any word processor. Regards, 11:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Great work

By the way, I just wanted to say again, great work on the Vladimir Komarov article - it's much appreciated! Many of the cosmonaut / astronaut articles are in need of some serious improvement; and the books Burgess and Hall, and Hall and Shayler are great resources!

Hopefully you won't be scared away from Wikipedia by issues like the lengthy discussions at Talk:Star City, Russia; sometimes it's best to just walk away when other editors dig in their heals. The recent update from Sue Gardner reminded me how difficult it can be for newcomers. Anyway, happy editing! Mlm42 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent comment

Hi again. Your recent comment on my talk page appears to show that you took some of Ezhiki's comments personally. I think he was only trying to be helpful; he probably didn't even realise it was you that added the thing about "Pasha" to the article, so his comment wasn't even directed at you. Comments like the one you made sometimes lead to heated escalations; the best way to prevent escalations is to make sure everybody involved assumes the other editors have good intentions (the Wikipedia behavioral guideline is called assume good faith). Although I've been having discussions (maybe even arguments) with him lately, I still always assume good faith; then it's much easier to keep a cool head. Mlm42 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mlm42, thanks for coming to my defense—the above was very generous of you to say, but while my comments were indeed not meant to be personal, I will readily admit that Aakheperure had a point in his most recent post to my talk page about how easy it was to perceive them as unfriendly, especially by a newcomer. At any rate, a reminder about assuming good faith is always a good advice. If you ever see me in a similar situation again, feel free to whack me. I copied my response below. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2011; 13:11 (UTC)

You bit back

Hi, Aakheperure! While I am a little (well, frankly, more than a little) surprised by the sheer amount of personal negativism you've read into my individual comments, I will readily admit that overall you do have a point here. My last few weeks weren't all that swell (mostly for off-wiki reasons), and looking back, I can see that it shows here on-wiki as well. Having a bad time, of course, is never an excuse to bypass common courtesy or to make acidic remarks, so I do sincerely apologize for the comments which you found hurtful. Please, however, consider that my comments are more an indication of being passionate about Wikipedia overall and about the geography of Russia in particular than of a general ill will towards the newcomers, and that I tend to pay great attention to detail and accuracy when it comes to the topics I am involved with. Sometimes too great of attention, it so seems, and at the expense of praise which the work you've done so far undoubtedly deserves. I hope this is something you can understand, if not forgive.

In conclusion, as far as the specific points you raised on my talk page, if you want me to respond to any of those individually (rather than to acknowledge them in bulk), please let me know; I'll be happy to oblige. And, as the Irish say (and if they don't, they should)—let each of our next encounters be more joyous than the ones that preceded them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2011; 13:11 (UTC)

Screen reader usage

Hi Aakheperure, I was referred to your talk page by OlEnglish, regarding the use of a screen reader on Wikipedia. If you have "difficulty processing visual information, then it might be worth using a screen reader with good Internet support to navigate around Wikipedia. However, it would probably be a complete paradigm change for you, which would be very difficult to get used to. Perhaps it would work for you to use a screen reader in conjunction with screen magnification software, to get the best of both worlds. I was a proficient user of my screen reader JAWS when I started editing Wikipedia in February 2005, but I was only able to use it at the same level as fully sighted people after six months of active editing ... and Wikipedia was far less complex in 2005 than it is now. Which operating system and screen reader do you currently use? What is your level of vision impairment? I'm totally blind, BTW, so I have no experience with screen magnifiers. Graham87 06:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the Mac, but the following tips may be helpful:

• You can change the theme of Wikipedia (i.e. your "skin") in the appearance section of your preferences. Perhaps the MonoBook skin might be easier to use. You can customise just about any element of the appearance of Wikipedia using CSS (see Help:Cascading style sheets). I'm not too familiar with customising Wikipedia in this way, but if you make a request at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), someone will be able to help you. Some of the items in the gadgets section may be of use as well.
• I don't know how to make it easier for you to read long talk page discussions. Perhaps the ideas about changing Wikipedia's theme may be of use.
• You might find the Wikipedia cheatsheet and the pages linked from there to be helpful.
• Maybe there are some people more familiar with screen magnifiers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility or Wikipedia talk:Accessibility.

Hope this helps. Graham87 10:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC

Hi I am sorry as you said I am probably not able to help you with everything so I asked User:Alpha Quadrant to help you too in case I can't, if you are still having some problems with people around just tell me who, I will message them soon and try to somehow handle it, anyway I am available from Gmt (eu time) 8:00 till night. Petrb (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Rumours

I removed the unsourced rumours from the Vladimir Komarov (see article talk page) and re-wrote the article using reputable sources. I notice the last 2 edits on this page are of people putting these rumours back in to the article, the first editor cited a blog, (which contains most of the other unsubstantiated rumours that were originally in the article) and the second did not cite any source. I have checked 4 reputable sources on this matter and only one refers to them, in that source, Fallen Astronauts by Burgess, Doolan and Vis it says that these rumours have been debunked p. 173. What can I do to keep this article accurate? Aakheperure (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The most effective way to accomplish this would be to start a discussion on the page's talk page explaining why you removed the content and why you believe it should stay removed. This follows the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and is the most effective and appropriate way to reach a consensus on editing a page. Hope this helps. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I already raised this on the article talk page. I looked at the page mentioned and it says the BRD is best used by experienced users. I am not an experienced user. I just know that uncited and unsourced information is being put on this page. What is the next step, please? Aakheperure (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have reverted the last edit, but the one preceding it has an appropriate reliable source. If you feel that the source is incorrect, do not remove it, but add an addendum to the end of the statement saying that others (and state who) have said that these are rumors, and then cite your source. I believe that for now, that is your best course of action. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft

User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft

User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)