Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive J

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance).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

How many articles from non-English wiki have equivalents on English wiki?

Do we have a tool that could check how many articles on a given Wiki (for example, Polish wiki) have interlinks to a specific (English) Wiki? PS. I know that User:YurikBot works with interwikilinks, but I couldn't find anything on his page about statistics. PS2. I checked Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link, Wikipedia:Interlanguage links, Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link (shouldn't those two be merged?) and Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination, but they don't seem to have the ansewer (or I can't find it :>). I will crosspost notices about this question at their talk pages to draw more attention.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I estimate 2 million don't: see my test at User:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Fairfax-Harwood

Can somebody help me by sorting out my page a bit I don't know what to do and its just collecting flags. I am a sound engineer an no author. If a kind Wikipedian code writer could sort it out a bit I would be so chuffed. Thanks. Mark Fairfax-Harwood — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassmec (talk • contribs) .

Mark, My sense is that you meant your article, Mark Fairfax-Harwood, to be your user page. If that's so, you can move what you've written (to a userpage) and it will no longer be flagged for deletion. J. Van Meter 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Accidentally found a sockpuppet of a blocked user

I need assistance with a tricky matter: I stumbled across what I think is a sockpuppet: someone committed user page vandalism (placing an image of a masturbating man on the page) on the page of a user I had communicated with. I removed the vandalism and placed a warning on the talk page of the user who had committed it User:Sirrom nodnarb yerffej). I noticed that this user had only been active for a few weeks, but had a pretty elaborate user page and had awarded himself a barnstar for his 50th page creation. I became suspicious and checked out the history of a page he had contributed to. The history had another user who had a similar name (reverse letters of the middle name, User:Brando03), so I went to this user and found that he/she had been blocked just before the other user had started being active. So I went to this other users history before the page was blanked and, sure enough, it was an earlier version of the new user's page. I don't feel confident enough to place a tag on that user's page, since I am pretty new to this. But since the vandalism was very aggressive (the subject line read something like "If you fuck with me, I will blow you away"), I feel this user should be stopped. Thank you for your help. --Jottce 05:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The user name is the reverse of Jeffery Bernard Morris - is there are an account in that name? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reverse to the whole user name, Jeffrey Brandon Morris, just the middle, Brandon, as Brando03. It is the same user, if you check the history of the user page. I saw you placed a welcome message on the talk page of the user. I am learning. Was my "blatant vandal" warning too harsh? Even though the action was extremely aggressive? --Jottce 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Image vandalism is not typical of corrigible newbies. I think blatant vandal is the appropriate warning here. Deco 03:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Deco and Brookie for your responses. However, I am still not sure what to do about the issue of the sock puppet. Whose attention should I draw to it? Does it deserve attention? Thanks for your help. --Jottce 10:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Biological distribution maps

Not that I claim to be knowledgable in the field of biology, but out of curiosity, how exactly are biological distribution maps like the one to the right created for Wikipedia without infringing upon copyright?

I once created one for the Oceanic whitetip shark. Copyright only applies to data which has involved some kind of creativity during its creation. Publically available lists, for example, are uncopyrightable. Since distribution maps are the expression of publically available lists in a different medium, I would say they are generally uncopyrightable. You'd have to ask a lawyer though. --Oldak Quill 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In the US, and much of the world (developed especially), copyright belongs to the creator of the image, words, sound, .... Any use of the material (with some exceptions that can generate more than a little controversy, Fair Use (in the US), Fair Dealing (in the Commonwealth) etc) requires a license from the copyright holder. That creator may have been working for an employer, and part of the contract for employment is that copyright in works created for it belong to the employer. This is true for most movie cartoon characters, for instance. However, a copyright holder may retain copyright, but license its use under particular terms. such as the Gnu Free Documentation License or any of several other similar licenses (see copyleft, Creative Commons, BSD license, GPL, etc). Mostly, they attempt to prevent commercial use while providing access by others, such as WP. Or 'to the public domain' meaning that anyone can use the material without asking, it having been licensed 'to the public' as it were.

So, it is not 'publically available' which is the test of use on WP, but rather the intent of the copyright holder. This is not always easy to determine, as they are sometimes hard to find. A problem which movies, for instance, face daily; use of most music requires a separate license for each use. There are people associated with each movie production whose daily job is to chase this stuff down. ww 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is misleading in several respects. A work granted to the public domain (where this is legally possible) is not "licensed" at all, but actually has no copyright owner. The GFDL does not prevent commercial reuse, and in fact we do not permit the use of noncommercial licenses for uploaded media. You mentioned the GPL and BSD licenses, which are software licenses and not particularly suitable for media. Rest looks okay. Deco 15:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Goosebumps

I want to get a bit of concensus (non binding, just looking for views on the matter) about whether to have An article on almost every single one of the Goosebumps books, and a related stub catagory. I personally don't see why we need an article on every one, some of which just say that they are a book by R.L Stein. If I get a reasonable concencus on the matter I may nominate them all for deletion. Please ntoe that I am not against listing al the titles, I am just questioning whether an article on every single book is necessary. Viridae 00:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I remember rightly (and I can't remember where I read this, nor am I looking for it at almost 2am), mainstream published books are deemed notable enough to be worth having articles, so in my opinion stubs of these books shouldn't be deleted. Having said which the list of the books looks like a bit of a waste of space - I'd recommend hiving it off as a category, Category:Goosebumps books, or something, and then just linking to it. --JennyRad 00:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I know mainstream books deserve article space - paticuarly those that caused as much fuss as goosebumps, however I am questioning whether we need an article for every single one, because on their own they are not notable. The articles are mostly "such and such is a goosebumps book" or a synopsis of the storyline. Viridae 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with them. — Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're actually articles, they're fine; I just deleted one that completely lacked context, and was merely a post of the copyrighted summary of the plot by R. L. Stine. Postdlf 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of being consistent. If a few of the books justify full articles then I would make them all articles. However, I suspect there isn't really enough material to justify articles for even a few of the books. I would probably go for a list with a brief summary under each book. --Mark S (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with MarkS on this. Goosebumps books are notable, but "X is a book in the Goosebumps series by RL Stine." isn't even a sufficient stub entry. I would redirect all titles to a list of the books with short non-copyrighted summaries and break out a book if something more can be said of it. Some were also made in an episode for the tv series. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Drive space is cheap and Wikimedia buys in bulk. I wouldn't worry about using up all the harddrive space, especially not with text. Don't forget that when you delete an article, the text still hangs around on the drive to be dug up later! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Collecting them in a list of small articles is an option. Circeus 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MarkS and Mgm. I think a few hundred stubs (which is what giving each of these books an article would create) would be fairly worthless, as they would be messy, confusing, and difficult to maintain. It's a much more elegant solution to create one or more lists of books like the lists we have for television episodes (see List of House episodes). A notable exception for television episodes are the individual articles we have for Simpsons episodes. However, there are so many fans of the Simpsons that each article is long enough not to be a stub and also be of good quality. This doesn't seem to be the case with Goosebumps, as many of the books do not even have articles at all.

JianLi 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Publications collaboration

Some time ago I made the Wikipedia:Publications collaboration. I didn't ask for help at the time because I would like to add some more stuff befor asking for help. But unfortunerly I got very busy and never had the time. So, If anyone would join I would be very happy. --Equanimous2 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why

Why is it that no one answer for many times? I demand answeer from aboveve question. --Uzerbaaji 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

32 minutes is hardly "for many times". The Village Pump is not run by automated bots from whom you can "demand" answers. Please remain patient. Tonywalton | Talk 09:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be patient. It takes time for people to read and respond. Not many people check the village pump regularly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I do help

Hi I is to (can) help convertt uzbeik and (russdian or turkemn) from engwrish. Give articcle and I convaert. --Uzerbaaji 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're offering to convert (or rather translate) to those languages you should probably be making the offer on the appropriate Wikipedias, for instance http://uz.wikipedia.org or http://ru.wikipedia.org as the en Wikipedia doesn't need translation from English into other languages. Take a look here for information on translation to English for this WP. Regards Tonywalton | Talk 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

heloio

I frm Uzbekkisstan I new here . My engdish is too be impoved. I want a be to a admunistataor --Uzerbaaji 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome to the English Wikipedia. You can edit the Uzbek language edition. You need better English to become an administrator here. If you would like to give me a message at my talk page, I will try to help with your English, but I speak no Uzbek (or Russian).-gadfium 05:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User name

Hi. I don't speak english so good, excuse me for my mistakes. Well, I would like that an administrator change my user name of my account. I don't know if that is possible, but if someone can do that, please contact me in my talk page. Thank you. (aah, and congratulations for this excelent encyclopedia!!) --Gzuz pc 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to see Wikipedia:Changing username. Viridae ^Talk 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, This article has been made about me but I never gave anyone permission to make it. Now I dont want to make legal actions, but I imply that this article should be deleted. Thanks --Lightbulb-Bulblight 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermin_%C5%A0iljak

You cant really force deletion due to the fact you didn't authorise it. All the information is public domain. Besides requests like this can never really be verified - are you who you say you are? However as the article is a fairly non-notable biography I may list it for deletion. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask though, out of interest, why you are not happy with the article being included on wikipedia? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont like to be expolited on the internet. Can you please delete this article? --Lightbulb-Bulblight 12:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A former player on a national football team is a public figure of sufficient importance to have an article on Wikipedia. I can't see how this information is expoliting you in any way. Kusma (討論) 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of our policies on verifiability, all information on Wikipedia is or should be available elsewhere. Even if we did remove it, it would accomplish nothing for you. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is the same as say a national newspaper running a short biography on you - you cannot stop them as the information is public domain. The only time you can really take action is when they lie or produce information for which there is no verifiability. Anyway, I decided not to list the article for deletion as the person is fairly notable (might fail WP:BIO) however someone else with more knowledge might well list it --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are not going to delete it then I will have to take legal action. --Lightbulb-Bulblight 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of No Legal Threats. If the article contained libel or false information about you, you'd have a right to complain, but this is not the case. Besides, how can we verify that you are actually the soccer player? As a Chelsea fan, I can post saying that I am Arsene Wenger and want my article removed from Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No Legal Threats only really covers user interaction with other users. Viridae ^Talk 12:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is only publishing information which is in the public domain. There is no slander or libel, intentional or not in that article. As any lawyer who is versed in this type of law will tell you, you have no grounds. Viridae ^Talk 12:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with all the above. A prime example of non-identity might be Raven Symone who claimed ot be the same person. Anyway if the content is libellous at all (although I doubt it very much), you have legitimate grounds (please consult a lawyer) and you are this person then don't post legal threats, instead please get in touch with User:BradPatrick who deals with legal issues for the wikimedia foundation. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, why would I waste my time "faking" who I am? and secondly, this is Wikipedias cheap attempt to stop getting sued. Now I am asking for my article to be taken down. Someone could vandalise and ill have Jimmy Wales kneeling down at my feet pleading me not to sue him. Like what happened to John Sellehire (?) Jr. --Lightbulb-Bulblight 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok calm down. Vandalism happens all the time here and it gets removed just as quickly. Anyway, I don't know how much law you know but you wont be able to sue the wikimedia foundation for any informatio n erronously and vandalized onto the article.

Please take time to read all of the help documantation and guidelines and hopefully you will see wikipedia is not the evil giant you seem to think it is but a great useful resource! In time perhaps you will become an editor and join in with us. Till then read WP:CIVIL and WP:LEGAL, as you will see there continuing you uncivil legal threats willearn you a ban - which would be a shame. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm --Read this. It took you guys 132 days to revert it. Now please remove my article. --Lightbulb-Bulblight 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That was removed because the information there was a libelous hoax (I don't know why it went unspotted for so long). Now what are your grounds for demanding the article be removed? Does it contain any libelous, misleading or confidential information?

Anyone can impersonate a celebrity for malicious reasons, and it happens frequently. That's why you have to prove you are the soccer player. When you make statements like "why would I waste my time faking who I am", you will make people suspect you of trolling. If you really were the soccer player, you'd do your best to prove your identity and co-operate. Even a 14-year-old like myself can see that.

I must remind you that most of the users responding here are just users of this website, and have no affilation with the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia. If you insist, I suggest you contact the Wikimedia Foundation, as there's not much we can do.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it happens. However it is rare and I *think* individual editors are responsible for what they submit, not the foundation itself. Viridae ^Talk 13:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But the individuals represent Wikipedia itself. Now please remove my artical. --Lightbulb-Bulblight 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will rephrase that. Legally responsible (I think). I think you should possibly contact The Wikimedia Foundation Viridae ^Talk 13:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Now is there ANY way for my article to be removed? --Lightbulb-Bulblight 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You can read about that isolated incident here, something like that is unlikely to happen again. I think this ought to be moved to yur talk page to discuss furhter as this is clogging up the village pump --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can try nominating it for deletion WP:AFD. It will not get through however, the article is verifiable and the subject is notable. Viridae ^Talk 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Il try that --Lightbulb-Bulblight 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This will be of interest to you Lightbulb-Bulblight: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In plain english it states that Wikipedia is not responsible for the content submitted by its users. Viridae ^Talk 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats only for America, not Slovenia--Lightbulb-Bulblight 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep and Wikimedia is an American foundation so any legal proceedings against it would have ot be in America - so it holds. Besides Slovenia has similar rules. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I contact the Wiki staff directly? --Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Delete_or_undelete for the email address of our mailing list for your type of problem. Kusma (討論) 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Removed

I wrote an article on the yacht designer Dr. T. Harrison Butler ('Harrison Butler') which has since disappeared. There was no tagging or discussion, it simply vanished overnight - did I violate some policy, or is this a system glitch, or did I make some mistake creating the article? This is a newbie (and former wiki fan) who feels well and truly bitten!

You can see the deletion log here. It mentions the reason for deletion. If you feel, that the deletion should be contested, do it at WP:DRV -- Lost ^(talk) 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Are you sure Butler is notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Did you see my post in Deletion/Content review? Notable enough to be the subject of a BBC TV documentary, which I suspect the overwhelming majority of pop music and geographical subjects are not. Besides this and the other points noted in the review post, Dr. Butler was also the father-in-law of Joan Hickson whom you may know as 'Miss Marple' - which would have made an interesting (although entirely) trivial note at the end of the article. I am somewhat concerned that the community is seemingly so ready to look for blame in a powerless newbie, and apparently unwilling to find fault with administrators - besides ignoring the fact that the administrator seems to have his own rules for speedy deletion, can't be bothered even to do a simple Google search on the title text (which would have settled the matter of notability) and lacks the manners or integrity to communicate with people whose work he so glibly destroys, what of Wikipedia's supposed values such as 'not biting newbies' and 'creating not destroying'? 84.71.133.199 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this deletion, like most A7 deletions, was made in haste, but really there should be no problem recreating the article and adding additional information to justify the topic's notability. Deco 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a permablock for myself

Hi, Would it be possible for this account to be permanently banned? I don't want to be able to continue logging on and flaming users like I just did. kthx KingTT 00:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I beseech you, and observe how great are the praises there bestowed upon frugality, self-control, ... and upright manners, the prevalence of which in any city entitles it to be spoken of as flourishing. Tonywalton | Talk

For the confused, this is a quote from a letter written by St. Augustine, as translated by J.G. Cunningham [1]. Tony's precise intent is unclear to me but I'm sure it was intended to be humourous. Deco 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am advising KingTT to exercise self control, rather than asking to be blocked to stop themselves from flaming. ;-) Tonywalton | Talk

He has already been blocked anyway - see his tallk page --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Searchable Wikipedia FAQ

I've made a searchable repository of questions (and answers) frequently asked by newcomers to Wikipedia. It's available at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/nubio/. It currently has 70 entries (many of the entries have been scraped off WP:FAQ and the various related pages, and some answers to the Help desk). If possible, I'd like to receive some feedback on the project, and see what people think. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it and where to link to it. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 09:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tangotango! How are you going to make that searchable FAQ accessible to the majority of new Wikipedians? Most of your answers are pretty short. For example, for "Why have I been blocked?", you could add one paragraph about policies (e.g. vandalism, spamming, personal attacks) and another paragraph about collateral damage ("autoblocked by the software" sounds too vague). Perhaps I could help you write more detailed answers (but you must double-check to ensure I write the right thing), and you could help out more on Requests for feedback (if you can help me get more experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers who will be willing to respond to requests, great!). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing pdfs on the web

Should I cite PDF files any differently than I cite webpages? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope citing them in the same way is fine. What method do you use to cite web pages by the way? ;) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait... the above answer presumes that the PDF document has no other publication information other than the URL to access it. If the PDF is an electronic version of a published document (e.g. a working paper or other "hardcopy" document), then all the publication information available for that document should be included in the citation information. This typically would include title, author, publisher, publication date. In that case, cite the "hardcopy" document adding the additional information that the softcopy version of the document is available at a particular URL.

The critical question is whether the PDF is primarily a standalone electronic document similar to a web page or an electronic version of a "hardcopy" document.

--Richard 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Err I don't quite follow that! I was assuming he was using the {{Cite}} template which allows for plenty of reference information - including author, title etc... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not really disagreeing except that the original question did not specify what the reference style was. Yes, you're right IF the {{Cite}} template is being used. However, many websites are referenced in Wikipedia articles using just the URL or using the web variant of the {{Cite}} template.

For example, <ref name=Telegraph> {{cite news | url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/17/utsunami.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/17/ixnews.html | date = [[2006-07-17]] | title = Earthquake triggers a tsunami on Java Island | accessdate = 2006-07-17 | publisher = Telegraph.co.uk }}</ref>

Since many PDF's are simply softcopies of hardcopy documents, the full reference information about the hardcopy document is far preferable to providing just the URL. The key difference appears to be that hardcopy documents are generally attributed to one or more author(s) whereas many webpages are not attributed to a specific author or author(s).

--Richard 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see, I had a dumb moment :D SO the cumulative advice (Ikiroid) is to use the Cite template as normal (which you should use anyway) but use all of the syntax for it and make sure you get all of the info (and perhaps make a note if the PDF is a copy of a hardcopy document). Agreed Richard?? or am I off again (not unlikely!) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are in agreement. --Richard 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just got back on to see a huge thread about this.....I think I get it though. I'll just use the cite template. Whew. Thank you for the quick response. This certainly was a new thing I've learned ;) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I just recently discovered the nifty little {{pdf}} template, that can put "pdf" after a link to such a document -- the icon highlights the fact that it's not an html page, and the text link explains what a PDF is. — Catherine\^talk 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Question on state templates

Just looking for clarification on something. Every single town/city page under Connecticut now has Template:Connecticut on it as far as I know, as well as several "distinctly" Connecticut pages that I saw. Is it standard for all towns/locales/cities in a given state to carry that template? Looking randomly at other states it looks completely hit or miss. rootology (T) 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's kinda common. If someone creates the template for a state (or any other topic) then it normally gets added. If there are states with templates but they are not added to some of the relevant articles feel free to add them. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Right-o. That's... a lot of pending articles. But thanks! rootology (T) 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NP, if you want help just ask.. actually I'll head to your talk page!... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Conventions in Wikipedia evolve over time. To the extent that there is a "standard" template for Connecticut that differs from the "standard" templates for other states in the United States, this is a bad thing. There should be an effort to regularize templates across all 50 states (and territories too!). This effort should properly be coordinated via a Wikiproject such as Wikipedia:Wikiproject United States. I notice that there is no such Wikiproject. I would propose creating such a project if there is no other Wikiproject whose scope covers the United States.

--Richard 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made a proposal on Talk:United States to create a WikiProject called Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. It has become clear to me that there is a need to regularize these infobox templates across all 50 states. --Richard 22:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states. Perhaps that's more what you're looking for. ONUnicorn 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Need Help With External Links

Hi, I made 2 external links for "Till We Have Faces" (review and critisicm) and "X-Plane" (X-15 videos by NASA) and neither of them seem to be working. If anyone would either explain to me what I have to do, or if they can change it, that'd be great. --Tom 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombrollins (talk • contribs)

I checked the articles, Till We Have Faces and X-plane. You seem to have gotten the wikicoding for the external links right, the problem was just that you had a backslash at the very end of them. I removed them as can be seen here, and it solved the problem. Another quick bit of advice: you can easily sign your posts on talk pages by inserting four tildes: ~~~~. The above signature is helpful, but it's better to just do it with the tildes, as it inserts the date automatically and provides a residual link to your user page. Cheers!--Kchase T 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback for portal

Hello everyone. I've just made a new portal, its Portal:Indonesia, my home country! yay! So, umm, does anyone know where can I get feedback for the portal? Cause I think its impossible to get it from WP:RFF and WP:PR. Cheers -- Imoeng 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I thinks its alright, try cleaning it up a bit, that way it would be fine, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WHY is NOT Wikimedia's proxies valid now in mainland China?

Wikimedia's proxies are in 145.97.39.1-145.97.39.255,some of them like this:

145.97.39.156:80
145.97.39.142:80
145.97.39.140:80
145.97.39.135:80
145.97.39.132:80
145.97.39.138:80
145.97.39.133:80
145.97.39.139:80
145.97.39.134:80
145.97.39.136:80
145.97.39.131:80
145.97.39.137:80

Now, we can still pass ping test,such as:

C:\>ping 145.97.39.136

Pinging 145.97.39.136 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 145.97.39.136: bytes=32 time=455ms TTL=50
Reply from 145.97.39.136: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=50
Reply from 145.97.39.136: bytes=32 time=449ms TTL=50
Reply from 145.97.39.136: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=50

Ping statistics for 145.97.39.136:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 448ms, Maximum = 455ms, Average = 450ms

but we can not use the proxy service any more...

Please help me and all of people behind the GFW !--Android.en 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Chinese government has stepped up its firewall rules blocking the Wikimedia servers, following a report on Wikipedia in the Xinjingbao ([2]). See: [3] I hope you can access the servers using another way. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the current problem because of the GFW upgraded, otherwise why could I pass ping test on Wikimedia's proxies? I think , If GFW is going to block wikipedia thoroughly,it only need to block Wikimedia's proxies and HTTPS server's IP address , it is very easy thing to GFW. it needn't make things complex.
Further more, I can not find the report by xinjingbao you mentioned, could you give a link to the report?
(我不相信是GFW升级的原因，否则为什么可以ping通维基媒体的代理服务器？如果GFW想要彻底封锁掉维基百科，目前只需要封锁掉维基媒体的代理服务器和HTTPS服务器的IP地址就可以了，对于GFW来说这是再容易不过的事情了，根本没有必要搞的那么复杂。
而且，我也没有找到您说的新京报的有关报导，能给出报导的链接地址吗？)

But now, Wikimedia's proxies can use again, I don't know it work ok really?
(但是现在，维基媒体的代理服务器又可以使用了，不知道是不是真的正常了……)--Android.en 15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jyrascope

Hi

I want a jyrascope. How do i spell this?? THanks Plus why is my ip recorded. I will sue wikipedia for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.225.65 (talk • contribs)

Firstly i think you are looking for Gyroscope and secondly ever single website you visit has acccess to your ip. Viridae ^Talk 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you do not want your IP to be visible, please create an account and log in to edit. The MediaWiki software will still know your IP, but other users will not be allowed to see it, except a small group of users with "CheckUser" rights that are used to prevent abuse. In addition, using an account to edit will allow you to access more features of Wikipedia, such as uploading images. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot account for AWB/other semi automated edits

After going through another AWB spellcheck run, I recently realised that when I hit 5000 edits, about 95% of my edits will be semi-automated AWB edits, vandalism reverts, automatic warnings/wikify taggings/stub recategorisation and more. Due to the vast amounts of time I find to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd like to be able to run along like a simple little wikignome and correct spelling and the like, but I don't want to overload this account's contrib list with hundreds (possibly thousands) of AWB edits and the like. I read in a wikipedia policy somewhere that if I was making more than 1-2 edits a minute I should consider opening a bot account, but seeing as my edits aren't really fully automated I'm not quite sure. Can someone please tell me if I should register User:DraiconeBot for my AWB edits or just continue on my current account? --Draicone ^(talk) 09:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd use a seperate account. That way you can keep track of your own edits and those made using AWB (or another tool). I've got a semi-automatic bot for which I use a seperate account for that reason. --Erwin85 11:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the assumption is that if you're making more than 1-2 edits a minute, you're using a bot of some sort which should be registered and its update rate limited (see Wikipedia:Bots). It sounds like AWB has no rate limiter, and whether it's used from a bot account or not perhaps it should. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The AWB article suggests that a bot account should be used if you are making more than 1-2 edits per minute. Given that 95% of your edits are via AWB then it would probably be best to use a separate account for AWB. If you do this then I suggest you make put some information on the user page for both your main account and the AWB account indicating that you have multiple accounts and the reasons for it. You might also want to read WP:Sock on the legitimate use of second accounts. --Mark S (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have registered User:DraiconeBot, marked it as a secondary account of mine and applied for its bot approval. Thankyou for your advice. --Draicone ^(talk) 06:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should have a new account, but it should not be marked as a bot unless it is. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation tag question

I'm having some trouble with the formatting of inline citations on Tom DeLay. Reference 62, which is listed in the first paragraph of the Grand jury indictments section, is blank. Also, the second paragraph of the section Investigation of alleged misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments is currently invisible to the reader; removing a backslash from a reference tag at the end of that paragraph replaces the current invisible sense with visible gobbledygook. Please advise. NatusRoma | Talk 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's number 64 now that's blank. I don't know why. It shouldn't even be there, since it's reusing a cite of number 59, so it should look like #1 with the a, b, etc. It looked fine to me, so perhaps it's a bug of some sorts. Maybe try a smaller name for the name on each of the 2 cites? The second paragraph is hidden because a ref isn't closed (maybe this will fix the other problem as well?). <ref name="drawingtheline"> should be <ref name="drawingtheline" />. Try that and hope it fixes the other error as well? MECU≈talk 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems to have worked perfectly. Thanks for your assistance. NatusRoma | Talk 01:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving templates to the left

Hi, I want to add {{Infobox WS}} to a few articles, but many of them are crammed with templates on the right side. Is there a way to override this default so that a template can be put to the left? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although not generally preferable, to do so you would need to add float: left; in the style description at the top. So your style statement would be: style="width:270px; float: left;". You can see the example that will show a template floating on the left here: User:Mecu/TemplateTest. But again, I caution that doing this is not generally preferred. MECU≈talk 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...the reason I ask is because certain articles like Hiragana and Katakana have two large templates in the intro, and they look awkward being stacked next to each other. And because there is a table in the next section below, I don't really have the option of moving the tables down. Is there a better way to do this than having one on the left and one on the right? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the pages look fine as they are. You could create a test version with floating on your left in your userspace and then create a test page of that page to see how it would look floating on the left. I did this here using a modified version here. It appears it is also using the {{combi}} template so I had to remove that useage as well. There may be a way to just float specific instances of the template using a <div> or HTML markup though. I tried it an couldn't get it to work (though div seemed more promising). Perhaps you could also create a parsed variable in the template indicating which side to float on, and if omitted it defaults to the right. Then it wouldn't affect and current templates unless you go in and add the new variable. Though you'll have to deinately remove the combi template no matter what in order to do this. MECU≈talk 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, it's better to just stay with {{combi}}. When aligned to the left, the text runs into the template (there seems to be little or no margin on the left side). My original issue was the fact that the article looks like this on an 800x600 pic:

File:800x600pic.PNG

The text is sorta squished, no?

So I wanted the articles to appeal to people dealing with crappy monitors, if they are at work or school, where computers are often old. Do you think it's worth creating a whole new template to appeal to this? I'm starting to believe it isn't. I feel bad that you went through all of this work of rearranging the template when the end result doesn't change much. But anyway, I think I'll try and move the kana templates below and align the templates going down, like in Greek alphabet. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was about 5 minutes of work, not a big deal. I see your point with the squished text. Perhaps you could try using the {{-}} which I just discovered is kind of a spacer template to push things down to help solve this. I think this is more what you want. MECU≈talk 23:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got rid of the combi template in Hiragana, but something about the templates prevents them from going one on top of the other as a default or with {{-}}. This is quite bizarre..... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem

I hope it is the best place for my problem. I'd like to use images in melanoma article from DermAtlas site. The DermAtlas Disclaimer says that:

Otherwise you are free to copy these documents for personal use provided that:
1. it remains wholly unedited and unmodified or it is modified only for teaching purposes,
2. no fee or compensation is charged for copies of or access to this information, and
3. copyright notices and the accompanying disclaimers remain attached and credit is given to the DermAtlas (Suggested format: ©      DermAtlas; http://www.DermAtlas.org).

So can I use their images? Thanks in advance... NCurse _work 08:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

yep you can use them as fair use I would think. Use {{Withpermission}} and {{Fair use in}} (see talk pages of templates for usage) and provide a link to that disclaimer and the rationale and it will be fine. If you need help with the templates then just ask :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 08:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I should solve it, thanks! :) Great! NCurse

_work 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No problems :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just please have a look at one of them whether it is correct. Image:Superficial spreading melanoma 1 060619.jpg. Thanks! NCurse

_work 09:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost right. You need to be specific in the licensing and link to that disclaimer. I edited the page to add how it should look.. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw your edit, and made the same change in all of the 4 images. Thanks again! NCurse

_work 09:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How to hand out barnstars

How do you hand out barnstars? --Zonerocks 06:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Instructions are at Wikipedia:Barnstars. In brief, you copy the text from the middle column and post it to the receiving editor's talk page, inserting your personalized message, as well.--Kchase T 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing things which are said in an audio interview

I spend alot of time editing one article in particular, and the main contributions come from audio interviews with the person, which are copyrighted. Any tips on how to make citations? Could you let me know answers via my talk page? Regards Ade1982 22:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find a video or sound clip of those interviews online, and add a link to them? I can't reference to save my life either. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

learning to make typo-free redirects.

So I tried to create a redirect for "Bluebelly" to "Western fence lizard", and screwed it up by typing curly brackets when I meant square brackets. Now it won't redirect properly. Is there a way to (a) fix this, since it seems to be preferring to go to the existing not-technically-a-redirect page, or (b) delete the first item in the page's history?

Oh, nevermind. The real culprit is my browser's cache, duh.remington 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up top of Talk Page

I'm doing quite a bit of work on the Pelé article, and its the sort of work that needs a lot of consulting with other editors on the articles talk page. The talk page for the article has a load of boilerplate text at the top, which doesn't really seem to be serving any purpose. But I don't want to take all of it off without checking, in case that's not the right thing to do. Can anyone advise? --Jim (Talk) 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The boilerplate text comes from templates. These templates are used on hundreds of article talk pages, so please don't modify them (it will cost Wikipedia a lot of bandwidth). You could try substing the templates and then modifying them, though. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Other than the {{to do}} one (which was broken), each of them has a purpose (and each is related to a different WikiProject or similar, other than the last one, which is a standard talkpage boilerplate and could be removed safely if there is no influx of newbies). To help in these kinds of situations, I've just created a new template: {{skiptotoctalk}}, to be added to the top of a talk page which has too many boilerplate pastel boxes. It adds another pastel box with a link to quickly skip over the following boxes, landing at the TOC. --cesarb 03:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Need help soliciting Wikipedians to collaborate on articles.

On Wikipedia, my goal is to collaborate with other Wikipedians to improve articles of interest, and to make Wikifriends with the Wikipedians I collaborate with (as they are likely to share my interest in the article topic). The article may be an established article I hope to improve to Good Article status, or an article that I write.

However, I am having difficulty soliciting Wikipedians who are willing to collaborate with me. When I post on the article's talk page, or a relevant WikiProject, sometimes I don't get any responses even after a week.

For example, shortly after I joined the CVG WikiProject, I posted my intentions to improve RuneScape to Good Article status and to clean up the AdventureQuest article, and that I was seeking Wikipedians to collaborate with me. I received no responses after over 10 days, and my request was archived. I also posted on the SGpedians' notice board that I needed some Wikipedians to collaborate with me on the series of articles on Jack Neo movies. Again, no responses after over 10 days.

Need another example? I created Requests for feedback, an initiative where newcomers can seek feedback on articles they write. We currently need more Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers to respond to the increasing number of requests. I posted at the Help Desk, New Contributors' Help (talk) and Welcoming Committee (talk), but received no responses at all after a week. Only at Esperanza (talk) did I receive a response.

How do you suggest I solicit Wikipedians to collaborate with me on articles? I don't wish to spam hundreds of user talk pages just to get a handful of responses.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be that active Wikipedians don't know enough about, say, AdventureQuest to make an intelligent contribution. I don't. Rick Norwood 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The usual estimate it that there are about 1,000 active wikipedians at any time. With 1.3 million or so articles, and say that each active w'ian is conversant in 500 topics, that means that nobody gives a hoot about more than half of existing articles. So your experience is normal - it's certainly what I've found; with most articles, if you get three people involved at a time, you're doing well. - DavidWBrooks 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I'm not alone. Rick Norwood, I'm sure that there must be several Wikipedians interested in AdventureQuest, or there wouldn't be a thorough AdventureQuest article in the first place. Still, are there any better ways of soliciting Wikipedians to collaborate, or is posting on talk pages of articles and relevant WikiProjects the best I can do? Perhaps there's a Wikipedia page/process for seeking collaborators? As mentioned earlier, I don't wish to spam hundreds of user talk pages. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try Article Improvement Drive and other related collaborations, projects, etc. Or see what links to the articles that you're interested in, and then see which of those have the most activity. WP:FAC gets a lot of traffic. There also groups working in various maintenance areas. But, yes, other areas are lonesome, too. Maurreen 08:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hildanknight, it's probably worthwhile leaving a pointer to your discussion / collab initiative on the talk pages of editors which have made significant edits to the erticle in question. Thanks/wangi 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Wangi. This entails checking the edit history. And I won't be spamming hundreds of user talk pages; probably just 3-5. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Identification of Slavic(?) language?

The Category:Cities in Australia page has a link to Kategorija:Australijos miestai in amongst the inter-language links; it's obviously meant to be one. I'm guessing this is some Slavic language, but I have no idea which. Can anyone help and add the prefix? Thanks! —Felix the Cassowary 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This might give you some pointers as to where to ask. Tonywalton | Talk 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's Lithuanian; I fixed the link. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Baltic, that’s why I couldn’t find it! Thanks! —Felix the Cassowary 13:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Founding a Project/Portal

I am a longstanding member of two professional Russian history listservs, H-EarlySlavic and H-Russia, both on H-NET. Together, they have about 2000 recipients, all grad students, Ph.D.s and professors. It seems to me that it wouldn't be too difficult to use these lists to recruit and organize a Russian history "Project" and associated "Portal" on WP. I'm aware that there is a Russia Portal already, but I think there is good reason to have a separate one for Russian history. Most Russian historians don't consider themselves modern Russia experts. Moreover, they work in history departments, not in departments dealing in contemporary affairs (political science).

Anyway, I'd like to take a crack at organizing a Russian history Project/Portal via these listservs. I'm reasonably well known in the Russian history field, know a bit about WP, so I think I'm the right person to try it. The problem is I don't know how to create a Project/Portal, and I want to do it according to WP community specs. Could you advise me on the *right* way to go about it, that is, according to WP policy and in such a way that I don't make any obvious gaffes? Are there steps? Does it need WP community approval? Is there a "Starting a Project or Portal" page"? If not, maybe I could create it as I set up the Russian history one...

I would also add this model of expert engagement (professional listserv-to-Wikipedia project/portal) could be used in other disciplines. Good way to get specialists involved and improve quality. If it works... MarshallPoe 14:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I get into the Unusual Requests page?

~You're the Hildan, now Knight!~

If you mean Wikipedia:Unusual requests, you don't. That page is for people who make 'unusual requests' unintentionally, genuinely believing that they're making a valid request. When people deliberately try to get themselves into Wikipedia:Unusual requests, WP:BJAODN or similar, despite their best efforts they always make it obvious that they're doing it deliberately. They won't be preserved, just pitied (at best). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That said, if you can put on a convincing impression of a clueless newbie who thinks Wikipedia is a means of communicating with their ISP, local political organization, grocery store, or God, then you might very well get on it. Deco 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agencia Brasil Phot Archive

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but still...

There are a lot of CCommons photos available at http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/imagens. Unfortunately, I can only seem to view photos from 2006 and the particular one I want is from 2004. My Portugeuse isn't too good, but I was wondering if anyone did have enough Portugeuse to see if they could get too earlier photos? Thanks! --Jim (Talk) 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Try this Google translation. I looked it over, and it seems, from the date range pull down menu, that they only have 2006 available. Perhaps their archive is fairly new, and doesn't go back to 2004, at least, in web form? Phidauex 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

county infbox

The Contra Costa County infobox is missing the unincorpertaed area of North Richmond, Califnia, whilst it does contain not only other unincorperated areas but smaller ones, but there is no edit button, how can i have North Richmond added or how can i ask someone to do it/propose it?Qrc2006 07:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit the article and at the bottom you'll see that where the navigation template is (it's not an infobox, btw), there's the code {{Cities of Contra Costa County, California}}. That means it's transcluding Template:Cities of Contra Costa County, California at that point. Go to that template, click 'edit' just as you would with an article and insert the new link. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia self-referencing

I'd like some folks to take a look at recent contributions to Bully, in particular a section of Meta-observations about wikipedia that uses as citations.....wikipedia talk pages, in strict violation of WP:RS. I have been involved in a recurring dispute with the user so my deleting it won't do much but I would appreciate some other voices on the application of WP:V and WP:RS. --Mmx1 23:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything much there, but certainly Wikipedia talk pages are not reliable sources (they fall under both 'forum posts' and 'wikis' for a double-barrel load of meaninglessness), and anything based on them should be removed as original research (probably trying to make a point). Looking at it now, I can't see anything about Wikipedia in that article, maybe someone else removed it already. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

More general concept Coelenterata redirecting to Cnidaria

I have a dispute with User:Dalbury, who all by himself decided that Coelenterata redirecting to Cnidaria is appropriate. I disagree with that, since Coelenterata actually includes both Cnidaria and comb jellies, so redirecting it to only one of them is against common sense. It created some interwiki conflicts already, and is confusing to reader as he would think that Coelenterata is equivalent to Cnidaria, which is not. I've restored the article, but Dalbury reverts to redirect, stating that short stub is worse than having a redirect. He never asked any other expert opinions, as far as I'm concerned. Can please someone comment on this case? What should I do to resolve the conflict peacefully? Please, need some advices, best to be put in the Talk:Coelenterata. Thanks in advance. --Maxxicum 01:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the standard place to get more eyes on an article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Autoblocks

All right... trying to figure out what to do when a user is blocked due to an autoblock. I've looked through WP:AUTOBLOCK, and the course of action isn't entirely clear. User:Smudger61 has requested an unblock, and has provided his IP at User talk:Smudger61... so what do I do now? I click on the autoblocks link, but I'm not sure what to do from there. Thanks in advance. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock and insert the IP address and the reason. That's it. You can also get to that page from any block log. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I am Brevevsky, Tutor of Uzerbaaji Rafilave. I hear he goes by the user name User:Uzerbaaji. He is a student of mine. Please unblock him. He is sorry of mistakes me has made, he is just trying his english out.

(I am a teacher of the Vostok English House)- Thanks --Brevevsky Sovietov2006 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the funniest thing ever Ashibaka tock 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gmail

I'd like to get a Gmail account to use here, but it looks like I have to either sign up on a cell phone or be invited. Will some kind person with Gmail please send an invitation to my current wikipedia e-mail account? Thank you. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just send me a message through "e-mail this user" (or give me your current e-mail in whatever form) and I will give you an invite. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On the way. Thanks. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject MusicBrainz

I didn't really know where else to ask this.

Today I came across Wikiproject MusicBrainz and I'm not sure what to think of it. It's stated goal is to link wikipedia articles to the MusicBrainz website. The members go to pages about musicians, songs, or albums and add links to corresponding pages on the MusicBrainz site. It screamed of spamming external links to me and seems like an inapropriate wikiproject. I became more suspicious when I discovered that about 2/3 of the project members are MusicBrainz moderators. It seems to me like a concerted effort to spam wikipedia. Am I interpreting this wrong?Dekkanar 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with linking to MusicBrainz from Wikipedia articles about musicians and albums - it's a useful, and free resource which provides content outside the scope of Wikipedia. There is a related discussion at WP:VPP about whether MusicBrainz links should be marked with special icons. You might be interested in that. Rhobite 16:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming an article

A recent attempt to delete the article stub Overlinking has failed once again:

Archived debate: no consensus [4]

The problem is that we have two competing articles here at Wikipedia, and one of them has got to go:

"Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context" is a style guide, not an ordinary article. It uses the shortcut WP:CONTEXT.
"Overlinking" is a stub of an article.

The first has good content, but an extremely clumsy name, and that needs changing.
The second has so little content that it should be merged with the first, and then deleted.

The question is how to do this.

I suggest a new title, which not only describes the content perfectly, it also fits the current shortcut (WP:CONTEXT):

"Contextual hyperlinking"

This is a recognized concept on the web, as this Google search reveals.

What is the best way to do the renaming? Since the shortcut remains unchanged, the redirect is the only problem, (or is it?) -- Fyslee 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking should not be merged with a project namespace article. It is a main namespace article. Whether the project article should be renamed, I don't know - that's a question for its talk page. Deco 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Is it required to have two articles on the same subject then, or can Overlinking still be deleted in favor of the project namespace article? If not, is there any rule to forbid copying the contents of the project namespace article into the Overlinking article so it becomes more than a stub? -- Fyslee 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The key concept here is that as a project page, Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context makes specific recommendations on editing Wikipedia. If it were moved outside the Wikipedia: namespace, it would violate the neutrality policy as well as the policy against Wikipedia self-references. Since the article contains mostly statements of opinion ("should", "avoid", "better", etc) I don't see anything which could be copied into the Overlinking article. However if you'd like to expand Overlinking yourself, feel free. Rhobite 16:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For other uses...

Is there recommended guidelines about how to arrange the italicized "For other uses..." section at the top of the page? Personally I try to put them at the top, isolated from the main content. But I've seen others edit a page so that the infobox starts in line with the "For other uses..." lines. The later, to me, looks sloppy and cluttered. So if possible I'd like to find the consensus arrangement. But I couldn't locate anything in the style guide. (As an example, see Sirius which has oscillated back and forth a couple of times.)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the appropriate place to resolve this might be Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. For what it's worth, I prefer isolated. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Searching for images

.....do you srech for an image?— Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephK19 (talk • contribs)

Type the name of the image you are looking for in the search box and click search. Then scroll all the way down to the bottom and check "image" and uncheck all the rest. Search again and you should find images. You can also check Commons. Hope that helps.--Kchase T 06:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of a newspaper front page

At Talk:Ceasefire_attempts_during_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Independant_Cover_Picture, there is a discussion ongoing discussing whether or not the image on the article displaying the front page of a newspaper should be included in the article or not. It does not appear to violate the terms of its fair use, and it does seem relevant to the issue at hand, but several users are saying that the newspaper is biased and should not be included. There seems to be little room for compromise in this matter, so if anyone else could throw in their 2 cents about whether or not the image should be included, it'd help a lot ;). Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-Promotion on WikiP

As an editor, I can't find any help in dealing with articles that are clearly self-promotional for private businesses. The one I have in mind involves a private school in a Middle Eastern country which seems to be trolling for customers. Is there a way to mark it for possible deletion? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the instructions at articles for deletion. There is a template for tagging the article and listing it on a discussion page. Explain your reason as you did here. After 5 days of discussion the fate of the article will be determiend by community consensus. You can also try proposed deletion which is a simpler process, but can be derailed by one objection, so its not useful if the authors are keeping an eye on their articles. Still, my view is there's no real rush unless its an attack article or hoax, so try proposed deletion and if that doesn't work, try articles for deletion. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) You could tag it with {{advert}} or clean it up, removing the avdertising fluff. My guess is that this is a better solution than deleting the article, even if it reduces it to a stub. A poorly written article about a notable topic should usually be cleaned up. If you don't think the school is notable you can try to get the article deleted. To nominate for deletion, you may first want to use {{prod}}, which is a [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion}}. If the template is removed, or if you think the deletion is controversial, follow the instructions at the bottom of the WP:AFD page.

There are several policies for deciding notability: see a list at WP:N. Relevant to this case, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. WP:SPAM has some general information, but you may need something more specific. The notability of schools has been widely debated on Wikipedia. Most deletion discussions for schools these days seem to end in keep, maybe with cleanup. Keep up the good work! --TeaDrinker 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedia Users needed.

I, Kamisamanou Burgess, am working on a new wiki called DinerWiki. DinerWiki seeks to be the ultimate guide in finding the best place to eat. Intentions are that it will first be sorted by cities(aka Crossville,TN), then cuisine(mexican)or main courses(chicken, soup, etc.). I am asking for team members to help me design DinerWiki as I am mearly (merely? nearly?) a newcomer to the MediaWiki platform.

Requirements
- Mid-level to expert knowledge of the MediaWiki platform.
- Atleast 4 hours a week of time devoted to improving and moderating DinerWiki appreciated.

More Information
- DinerWiki
- Contact Information

Kamisamanou 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this constitute a 3RR violation, and by whom?

An anonymous troll is continually inserting insulting messages on my talk page. Each insulting message differs considerably in content, but they all have the same intention and were made by the same user. I'm reverting each of the insulting messages as they come (although he left three insulting messages before I first spotted and reverted).

Once I revert his insulting messages for the fourth time, considering all the insulting messages differ in content, have I broken 3RR? And after the anonymous troll inserts his fourth insulting message after my third revert, has he broken 3RR?

P.S. I'm fed up with all the moronic anonymous vandals. They are one reason why I wanted to leave Wikipedia before. I don't know why I decided to stay and waste my time on them. Thankfully RuneScape is semi-protected now, and without all the anonymous vandals ruining the article, it's getting closer to Good Article standards every day.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - the IP address is clearly trolling and you have all the right to remove personal attacks from your talk page. I have blocked the user for 24 hours for trolling and general incivility, as well. Cowman109^Talk 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him. I'll remember that I can remove personal attacks from my talk page at any time.

As a side note, what if an anon were to add a nonsense statement to an article, and I were to revert it? After my third revert, when he adds his fourth nonsense statement (assuming all the nonsense statements are different), is he violating 3RR? If I revert his fourth nonsense statement, am I violating 3RR? I think such an issue may crop up on RuneScape if the semi-protection is lifted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally unless it is clear vandalism it is best to not revert more than 3 times. If in doubt, it's probably best to leave it to others and mention it on the talk page of the article. It is important to make a distinction between an edit war and simply vandalism. If it is an edit war, then Dispute resolution might be the course of action to take. :) Cowman109^Talk 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll remember that I can remove personal attacks from my talk page at any time - be careful. Removing some templates when you're possibly committing 3RR violations, etc., should not be removed. I'm not saying that you would ever do such a thing, but don't point to this page as justification if somebody objects to the deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

F-words on admin's user page.

I was browsing Wikipedia, trying to find out more about the project and its users, and I happened to stumble on the userpage of someone named Freakofnurture. I got a shock. There were F-words and even a penis image there! And the categories are really offensive. I understand Wikipedia allows such things in appropriate articles, but on user pages? And Freakofnurture's an admin. He's supposed to set a good example, right? And if some unsuspecting user chances upon his user page... I don't know whether this is against policy or not, but if it is, please do something. I hope I don't...stir up a hornet's nest.

~You're the Hildan, now Knight!~

The penis image is tiny and part of a template that asserts his position on censorship. The use of curse words is probably also part of his assertion of this position. Considering that the use is not vandalistic or even frivolous, I don't see an issue. Deco 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon problem

Hi. I am currently working on an article, and am trying to get it up to GA status or higher (its on the wikiprojects computer and video games peer review). I noticed that an anon added some information to a section called historical errors. I just spent time adding references to the content of the article (I actually didn't write historical errors, so I am having problems citing it; different problem, but this makes it worse), and this anon didn't cite sources. I am worried he is a noob ( I don't want to sound nasty or scare him away), maybe editing from a public place (so leaving a message would look weird) and am considering deleting the section (it's not vandalism, but I have no way to cite it without talking to him). I am also guessing he doesn't have a source to easily tell me (or he would have tried to add it). What should I do? Thanks to whoever answers this (by the way the anon is 67.49.121.126). --Clyde Miller 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You might try a note on the talk page for the article. Maurreen 19:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If he was a registered user, it'd be easy to drop a note on his talk page. Since he's an anon, it's going to be difficult to contact him. That's one reason why I've always opposed anonymous editing. Anyway, the anon is unlikely to return, so just delete it or do what will improve the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A nicer way to deal with that type of text is to move it to the Talk page, adding an explanation of what is wrong with it, and accompanying with edit summary saying "moved to talk page for discussion". alteripse 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

End of term in the United States before the Twentieth Amendment

It was noon, March 4, Washington time; in discussing this matter, we have located the following sources.

From the Senate Report on Presidential terms: From 1789 through 1937, presidential and vice presidential terms ended on March 4 of every year following a presidential election, a date set by the Second Congress.
From Hind's House Precedents §6694-8. §6725 ftnote: On the 3d of March, 1851, Mr. Stephens offered a resolution to test this question, and on the ruling of Speaker Cobb it was decided that the Congress expired at noon on the 4th of March; which ruling has been in effect ever since. (6697)
- One of the arguments used here is that the Senate convenes at noon March 4, for six years, and that the House should do the same thing.

Some Wikipedians have been insisting on midnight, March 3, which is wrong; anybody who feels like fixing a date will be welcome. Septentrionalis 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Does anyone know how to remove this bit of Vandalism

At the bottom of the Barnsley FC page there is a comment about Derby. I cant seem to find the source of the text in order to remove it! Please help Thanks in advance

It was being included via double inclusion from Template:Football_League_Championship_teamlist. I reverted it. This may say something about the usability of templates. Deco 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I just realised this might not be the place to mention vandalism! Im new! --Screen42 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)User:screen42

Don't worry, this wasn't a bad place to post. Welcome, and happy editing. Deco 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--Screen42 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad good sources.

One would think that the BBC would be a good source however the BBC like many outlets has agreements to repeat information put out by other sources without acknowledgement. In the case of Cyrus Kar many news outlets including the BBC reported that he was a United States Navy SEAL. I found one internet posting [5] from a group that verifies the status of SEALS and received an email that says in part:

"We do not have the time to produce an article on every non-SEAL that ignorant media types appoint SEAL status. The fact is they don't know what they are talking about.

If anybody wants to know, they can ask us. Cyrus Kar was not a Navy SEAL and, based on what we have seen, he never claimed he was."

I really can't cite a personal email but what do we do when there a gazillion copies of a wire report with bad information?

--Gbleem 03:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Always a toughy. The BBC is a generally reliable source, but no source is perfect. Have you tried contacting them and suggesting that they make a correction? Then we'd be able to link to the correction. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA Voting

Pardon me, but are Admin allowed to block anyone who disagrees with your reason for voting? --Masssiveego 18:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I

Umm no, depending on the reason. Abusive wording, sockpuppetry etc. still apply but they shouldn't block just because of a cast vote. Why? Has an admin done this? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Massiveego opposes nearly every (or perhaps) every RFA, leading some editors/admins to suggest that he is doing this to be disruptive. In return, Massiveego has brought up on a number of different locations the questions, does my vote count?, which seems like it is starting to tick off the bureaucrats [6]. So he's brought it to yet another forum, for what purpose I don't know.

Here's my take. In theory, RFA is not a vote, it is a discussion to determine community consensus about an editor. In reality, supporting a candidate is a vote, but opposition requires consensus. If you vote to endorse a candidate with just your ~~~~ sig, no one cares, but if you oppose a candidate, you are expected to explain your reasons and to engage in dialog with the candidate's supporters. This has some interesting results, for example, a highly supported RFA can swing over to failure based on one well-explained opposer who changes peoples' minds or brings in new people. But it also means that supporters are rarely if ever asked to defend their opinions against the candidate's opponents while opponents are expected to defend themselves against the candidates supporters. Massiveego opposes nearly every candidate but does not engage in the expected dialog. Without passing judgement on the current state of RFA, Massiveego is clearly determined to march to his own drummer. As a result, he annoys people and they are dismissive of him. If Massiveego wants to feel like a full participant he needs to participate; but the only disruption comes from people who get annoyed at him and try to engage rather than just politely ignoring him. And this should really be held at WT:RFA. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I discovered this too, via his talk page, and have replied my opinion there. I will say though that I agree with what you have said above Thatcher. Dialog is everything on consensus - it is not a vote --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but the top of WP:RFA casts it in a fairly vote-like light... "bureaucrats may extend the deadline or call for a revote", "Who may vote", "Who may note vote", ... That said, it's somewhat common tradition in RFA to at least explain your oppose votes for a variety of reasons (eg. to hilight candidate's problems that other users may want to consider, ...). I suppose that if one's voting criteria are so far out of the mainstream criteria, then one's reasons for opposing aren't likely to sway other voters, so maybe it might be pointless for Masssiveego to explain the votes, I don't know. We've had other voters who almost always voted oppose [7], and while it seems to generate ill will among many wikipedians, I guess it's not explicitely prohibited. --Interiot 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Pardon me, but are Admin allowed to block anyone who disagrees with your reason for voting?" I don't know, do you still beat your wife? If you want to address a particular situation, cite it directly, don't ask leading questions intended to promote your point of view. Deco 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was quite serious. Just read my talkpage. I've oppose quite a few candiates because I felt they were not qualified. However I'm getting notices that I'm a disruption, and my "reasons" for oppose were required. Either way I would like some clarification when does WP:point, apply to the voting. Either the Admin are correct telling me that my voting pattern is wrong, and should quit voting immediately. Or do I continue to vote anyhow? I'm not too sure how the standard applies to RFA voting. It seems Mongo has his own standards, and I would like to know do I call what's going on in RFA uncalled for, or reasonable? Can an Admin block me for not providing a reason for my vote? I could have sworne that was the policy before that no reason had to be given, that anybody can vote any standard they feel was necessary. --Masssiveego 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you nearly always vote oppose without providing the explanation or engaging in a dialog as expected by the regulars at RFA, you should expect continued resistance. However I don't think it's disruptive in the sense of justifying a block and I doubt there would be much community support for a block if it were reviewed at WP:ANI. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. RFA is a discussion, not a vote, so it's in Masssiveego's interest to provide more information. On the other hand, an ineffective vote is not a threat to anybody and should be ignored, not retaliated against. Deco 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Probable notable-editor welcome procedure?

I've come across 3 notable editors editing their own articles lately, and went looking for an appropriate welcome template, but couldnt find anything.

All I could find linkwise, was Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you, and Template:Notable Wikipedian (which seems highly privacy-invasive to me (unless they place it themselves)), and I didnt want to just dump those links and a normal welcome template on their pages.

I understand the username issue, and the autobiographical editing issue, but would like someone else to concisely summarise them as part of a new welcome template.
I'd also request that someone set up a procedure/location, for us non-admins to delegate the task of "making official contact" to verify identity. (I'm thinking of Zanimum's comment at Stephencolbert, "The message was sent as a Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee member.")

The 3 editors in question are:

User:Jrosenbaum editing the Jonathan Rosenbaum article. (They were good npov/cleanup edits, and he's a professional writer, so (assumming it is he) it'd be really nice to have him welcomed but not overwhelmed.) (has already been given a basic welcome template)
User:Aa bronson editing the General Idea article.
4 edits to Pico Iyer by a non-static-ip Anon (198.81.1.*), claiming to be the subject. (he is another professional writer.) (I made an attempt at a welcome)

Thanks for any feedback. --Quiddity·(talk) 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would give them a nice friendly welcome, with the standard help links. Here are a variety of Welcome templates to choose from or get ideas for creating a custom one. I would also include links to Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and WP:NPOV, among the general help links. Hopefully their edits are inline with Wikipedia policy, and they will get the message. If their edits are problematic and they don't get the message, I would leave another note on their talk page. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How do these messages sound? I'll send them out by 3 PM EST if there's no changes... -- Zanimum 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Bronson,

Someone claiming to be you has edited Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia project. Is it indeed you?

If it is you, welcome! We'd love to have you as a contributor.

If it isn't you, we'll block the account, so that they aren't impersonating you.

Thanks,

Nick Moreau

Administrator, Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Communications Committee member, Wikimedia Foundation

Hello,

A person claiming to be Jonathan Rosenbaum has edited Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia project. I was wondering if we could have a simple confirmation or denial that the account "Jrosenbaum" belongs to him.

If it is Mr. Rosenbaum, the community extends its welcome to him.

If it is simply an impersonator of him, we will block the account.

Thanks,

Nick Moreau

Administrator, Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Communications Committee member, Wikimedia Foundation

Those drafts sound fine.

Is there a place to request the Communications Committee to do this type of thing?
I know we're (obviously) not meant to give celebrities special treatment, but I was thinking that professional/notable writers could potentially be welcomed with a bit more effort; Whilst everyone is "equal", some are a little more "equal" (or potentially valuable) than others ;) (Iyer and Rosenbaum, being at the top of their respective writing fields (travel, film), would make wonderful additions as either editors, or even just fans of the site.)

Thanks. --Quiddity·(talk) 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nexus Seven just pointed me towards Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article. That's where instructions on how to request official-verification-of-usernames should go. --Quiddity·(talk) 09:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I request article?

How do i request an article? I can supply some information but i donno how to make pages and properly put down source. For example I can supply this.

Ribbons of Orders, Decoration and Medals Guido Rosignoli Published 1977 by Arco Publishing Company, Inc. 219 park Avenue South, new York, Ny. 10003 Copywright Blandford Press 1976

Here is the info: Medal Wojska za Wojne 1939-45 pg. 140 also plate 44. Plate is a page wth pictures.

"Army Medal was created in 1945 for as a reward for six months of operational service during WWII, or twelve months in a non operational role." Quotations are for the reason it is direct quote from the source listed above.

Please see Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thanks, BT 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Any inclusion policy on commercial items?

Is there any policy on the inclusion or otherwise of series of articles relating to commercial items produced by a single manufacturer? I've been unable to uncover a consistent precedent on AfD. The example that worries me is Bratz dolls, which is currently in the process of seeding a large number of articles on each individual doll (see, for example, Ciara (Bratz character)). Espresso Addict 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Other than WP:CORP's fairly conservative section on products, I don't know of anything helpful. The relevant deletion precedent indicates only that future products are rarely notable.--Kchase T 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Kchase. It looks like a grey area that might be worth testing on AfD. Espresso Addict 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Definately take that to afd - and when you do, can you post the link on my talk page. I will be very interested in finding out how that goes. Viridae ^Talk 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, I've now brought one example to AfD as a test case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciara (Bratz character) Espresso Addict 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cris Collingsworth

While looking at recent changes, I came across this edit diff. It appears to be almost a total re-write of the article, with the aim of focusing the article less on Mr. Collingsworth's football career and more on his tv career, especially his return to NBC. The IP address that made the edit is registered to NBC, and the new version reads very much like a press release promoting NBC's sports programming.

I'm not quite sure if I should leave it alone, revert it, clean it up (as the person didn't use wiki formatting in the rewrite), or do a careful reading of the before and after and create a third version of it. I don't follow football and have never heard of Mr. Collingsworth before, so if there are errors in either version I might not be able to spot them.

Just thought I'd put it out here and see if I could get some other eyes on this. ONUnicorn 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with a reversion. Nationalparks 18:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So much Drama in the LBZ...

Seek definition for the term " LBZ "? 24.95.67.183 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a mistranscription of LBC, for Long Beach, California, which has ended up in many online lyric databases for Gin and Juice. In the future, please use the Wikipedia:Reference desk for questions of this nature. Cheers, BT 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

The bureaucrat who usually does the username changes (Nichalp will be inactive on Wikipedia until the end of October (as per his user page), and there is a long list of Wikipedians awaiting name changes who seem to be getting increasingly rowdier. Is there possibly another free bureaucrat who can take over his duties until he gets back? Ellie041505 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (or, hopefully, Eilicea)

I will copy this to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Kusma (討論) 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied to WP:BN -- Lost ^(talk) 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nutty refs on Jaguar

I noticed after trying to edit the Jaguar page today the refs were repeatedly fu**ing up, listing some refs twice and others out of order. I thought it might be an IE browser problem but I'm seeing the same problem with Firefox. Perhaps there's a single piece of syntax I'm wrong with, or I'm just confused. Anyone mind looking? There should not be 29 refs, there should be 22, but it keeps showing up as 29. Marskell 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

looks good to mne now! There does seem to be al load of problems with the references (and cite.php) at the moment - and noone quite knows why. (I suspect it might just be a replication error / lag). There is a longish topic on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if your interested. Ifthe article keeps looking od try adding ?action=purge to the end of the url. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous threads at WP:VPT. Or see this thread at WP:FN. Note that refs should go after punctuation. Gimmetrow 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re after punctuation: ya, ya. My little rebellion. I just think it's stupid :). Anyhow, thanks for the links! Marskell 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

copyvio dispute

The Laas Gaa'l article, which was recently featured as a "Did you know?" on the front page, contains a bunch of copyvio material, both in the text and the photo, taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4491257.stm . Another editor has been reverting me every time I stick in a copyvio tag. I would like to avoid a revert war. (I think some confusion may have been caused by the fact that some (not all) of the plagiarized text was claimed to have come from a different wiki, when in fact that wiki also copied the material from the BBC site. Anyhow, some of the material comes directly from the BBC site, and doesn't occur on the other wiki at all.) Attempts to discuss this on the article's talk page have not been very successful. Any suggestions as to what to do next? --24.52.254.62 23:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Public relations agencies editing articles of their clients

Lizmatthewspr (talk · contribs) — According to this edit, which quite rightly removed unsourced information from the article, the agent of Richard Bacon (television presenter) is Liz Matthews PR
Peters Fraser & Dunlop (talk · contribs) — According to this edit the agent of Alex Zane is Peters Fraser and Dunlop.
Tomwaddington (talk · contribs) — Re-created Liz Matthews PR and created unsourced articles such as Jo Good on Liz Matthews clients.

Please help to ensure that these editors stick to neutrality. Uncle G 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some references to the Jo Good article, but there are some problems. Among other things, Jo Good, a/k/a JoAnne Good, a/k/a Jo-Anne Good, has her first film credit in 1978, yet the PR firm gives her age as 26. This isn't mistaken identity, either; the actress's own site lists both her current job (the BBC Breakfast Show) and all her film and TV credits. --John Nagle 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Figured this out. There's Jo Good, DJ, music interviewer, and radio presenter on the Adam Cole Breakfast Show in the UK. And there's Joanne Good, TV/film actress, and radio presenter on The Breakfast Show with Jono Coleman, also in the UK. --John Nagle 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

mystery text on Robin Blaser

When I look at the Robin Blaser article, at the very bottom I see a long chunk of text about a poet named Daniel Thomas Moran, which doesn't belong in this article. But when I go to edit, it's not there. Can someone explain this? wikipediatrix 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The text has been added to one of the templates on the Robin Blaser article. You can see the list of templates used by the article at the bottom of the screen when you edit it. In this case, it's in {{US-poet-stub}}. You can simply remove the text, or decide whether it should go into its own article. Beware; it looks like a copyvio.-gadfium 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Playboy models of the day

I have PRODded the following articles:

Kristy Morgan
Barbie Murdock
Rita Granberry
Adrianna Kroplewska
Jennifer Torant

Apparently these models are models of the day on the Playboy website. This is their only notability, according to the articles. If there is one every day, that means 365 a year, that's not really notability. The writer is also using the Playboy centerfold infobox, which is not correct, since they are not centerfolds. The succession box is a bit much, as well. Please let me know if there is support for my PRODs out there? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep I think they will happily get prodded, no content on them anyway - if needed they should all go into a single list (if needed!!!!). Oh btw did you repy to my message on your talk page (about parc wiki researcher) as i think I might have missed it and would be intetrested to see your response (Im prod2 ing those articles btw) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole lot can be zapped. -- Hoary 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pages without interlanguage links

There is a wiki-project in the Greek Wikipedia (Βικιπαίδεια), to put interlanguage links in as many articles as possible called el:Βικιπαίδεια:Επιχείρηση Interwiki (wikiproject interwiki). I have found a page on pages without interwikis, here, however, it is not automatically updated. In fact it is about 9 months old. Can somebody update it? Or even better, can somebody indicate another way to find pages without interwikis, which is updated automatically? Many thanks. Please reply in my talk page in the Greek wikipedia: el:User_Talk:FocalPoint. --FocalPoint 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

how can i get an article listed as semiprotected if it is often vandalised, especially by unregistered users. this is concering the Richmond, California article. Qrc2006 14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You can request a protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Garion96 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Image cleanup

Image:Maddoxtacoma.jpg isn't of very good quality, presumably because the flash went on the white sign and not on the subject itself. Could someone with it in Photoshop or something to make it look better? Hbdragon88 05:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

vandal/sock puppet/IDK what but its bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=InterestedParticipant look at this guy, he seems like a vandal or something funky is going on in that article.Patcat88 22:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a vandalism warning for nonsense. If he keeps this up, you'll want to have him reported and blocked. --tjstrf 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And in return, he gave me a lovely warning as well! Brilliant! Diff. I think I'll go report him now. --tjstrf 23:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to change sig

I'm trying to change my signature from the standard one (which just links to your userpage) to one that also links to my talk page and contributions. I know what I want it to look like; I want it to look like this: ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)

But when I go to preferences and put that in, it doesn't look like that at all. Instead it looks like this: ~ [[User:ONUnicorn|ONUnicorn ([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])]]

What am I doing wrong? Doesn't the wiki code for links work the same in signatures as in other places? ONUnicorn 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Try this maybe? " ~ [[User:ONUnicorn|ONUnicorn]] ([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]]) ~~~~~"

It displays like this: "--~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)". Also, are you using the raw sig option? Because that would effect it. --tjstrf 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The raw sig box is not checked, so I don't think I'm using it. I just tried your suggestion, and here's the result: ~ [[User:ONUnicorn|ONUnicorn ([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])]] 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Check it and that should fix it. Prodego ^talk 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict) Then try checking the box. I believe the problem is derived from the way they automatically add "[[User:yourname|" at the beginning of the sig. If that doesn't work, then ask someone who uses that sig format personally. --tjstrf 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thank you! ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, happy editing! Prodego ^talk 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Complex problem with editorial dispute

As I've mentioned on my talk page I have a real problem with another editor: a single-minded guy trying to push (in my opinion) a particular POV in the contentious Anarchism article and other related ones. His favourite tactic, on top of weasel-wording, is to misrepresent sources, give sources supporting his view undue weight and trying to scrap sources opposing his view (which is not a consensus, but the majority trend) from the article unless forced to. He has been, in my view, strikingly dishonest and I would very much like for him to disappear. I've threatened to move to have him banned - he has worked in bad faith, been vengeful, disregarded standing standards within articles as well as current attempts at reconciliation. His interpretation of sources has repeatedly been questioned, but he insists on having them represented (even violating WP:3RR) against the wishes of the other editors.

But: this isn't the simplest case (the 3RR violation I reported hasn't been judged, 3 days on). Perhaps I'm not dealling with this the right way. I would like some advice on the matter - anybody willing to take a look through this quagmire? Thank you.

Sincerely yours, --Marinus 07:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a familiar problem. At my request a Wikiwizard created the "citecheck" template for misleading citations: see Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. I suggest adding that at the heading to appropriate sections - or perhaps the whole article if the problem is bad enough. A request for comment on the article sounds in order - often all it takes is fresh opinions to break a deadlock - and if that doesn't work then a request for comment on the editor or a request for mediation. Best wishes, Durova 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sig/Font

How do I change the font in my sig? Mac Lover ^Talk _C 00:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In the top right of your screen, click on the My Preferences link, click the "Raw signature" button, and enter [[User:Mac Lover|Mac Lover]], which would appear as Mac Lover. Of course, color and font can be changed to your pleasure. --TeaDrinker 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should also add, see WP:SIG for additional rules and regs... --TeaDrinker 00:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant what fonts are supported in the sigs.--Mac Lover ^Talk _C 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

I'm trying to find the most direct way to change the stub status of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The maze (talk • contribs) .

If you don't think the article is really a stub (that is, it is longer than about four paragraphs), go ahead and remove the {{stub}} tag (the actual tag will look something like {{something-descriptive-stub}}). If the article really is a stub, write a brilliant article then remove the tag. --TeaDrinker 23:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Added to Playmate's Discussion Page--Now What?

Hi,

I've recounted an incident in the life of Gloria Root (Playboy Playmate, December 1969) on the discussion page for her.

I'm new at this. What happens now? Do "senior" Wik-ittes review it and decide whether it has merit?

If I get to put it up, can somebody advise me on how to create those discreet little citation numbers? (My info just has the sources written out in parens.)

Anyhow, have fun; it's a revelation, that's for sure. It's called "Drug Smuggling Playmate."

Awaiting word....

Hezekiah-1812 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely worth adding as a subsection of the page, however, it has 2 problems that would prevent its addition as is:

1. Length. As written, it's too long and would eclipse the rest of the article, which would constitute undue weight and make the article tone excessively negative.

2. It reads like a copyvio or newspaper article. Where did you get it from? If that's a direct quote from the source, you'll need to rewrite it to avoid breaking copyright law. If not, then, while you're a good writer, you'll need to put it in a more encyclopedic tone.

--tjstrf 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with table footnotes

"King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France...pay your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France."^[1]

Joan of Arc, Letter to the English, March - April 1429

Wikimarkup wizards, please help solve a quick dilemma. I am attempting to create a footnote within a table so the footnote appears at the bottom of an article page.

Following the example at Pericles, I have translated short excerpts from Joan of Arc's letters. The reference for the example here should appear as:

Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Durova.

If wikimarkup does not support this, then would it be feasible to link to a separate mainspace page that I could create for the purpose of citing the text boxes? Three more quotes (table formatted, but without citation) are posted on the article talk page. Help would be much appreciated. Durova 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving talk pages

How do I move a talk page?

Occasionally, when I have some spare moments, I'll get on Wikipedia and hit "random article", fixing the occasional error. Today, I passed an article on Patrick Sweeney, which was only called "Patrick Sweeney" then. Curious, I searched Wikipedia and found that there were other articles about people with that name, so I moved the hockey player article from "Patrick Sweeney" to the new location, after which I put a disambiguation page up at Patrick Sweeney. I've just discovered, however, that the talk page for the disambiguation page redirects to the talk page for the hockey player. I'm assuming there's some way to get a talk page for the disambiguation page, but I'm not familiar with it. I expect there's also the answer to my question listed in some help file or another :-) but I don't have the time right now to look.

Thanks for your help! Nyttend 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like, I could do it for you. It's a little difficult to put into words and explain. :) Wikiwoohoo 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Aiman abmajid

Hi! While patrolling newly created pages, I came across these pages: Masjid Jamek Larkin and Masjid Ungku Tun Aminah created by User:Aiman abmajid who, according to his user page "has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee." If that's so, how can he be creating pages? (The related question is whether the articles created meet notability standards and should remain). Thanks for the assistance. --CPAScott 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

His block log says he was blocked indefinitely on 18 August, but it was lifted on 21 August. Nyttend 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Brigham Young University--Image

Will somebody please find a way to remove the extremely disturbing image from the page for Brigham Young University. I realize that Wikipedia is a completely free information database, but that image has absolutely no business being there. If anybody can be of help and assistance here, I would greatly appreciate it.

-Concerned and Disturbed

Howdy, and thanks for bringing this up. I don't see anything immediately wrong with any of the images on the Brigham Young University article, nor do I see any in the recent past. I count seven images total: five of campus, one logo and one of the stadium. Can you be more specific as to what is wrong and where you saw it? Nothing in the history suggests these images have changed recently. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the templates used by the page ({{Infobox University}}) had been vandalised. It was reverted after four minutes.-gadfium 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Greek speaker in the house?

Please report to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gate_13 to help clear some stuff up. Thanks! - Richfife 04:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do I list a cut and paste move?

Earlier today an article was cut and pasted from Woughton on the Green to Woughton over the redirect that was initially there pointing back to the original article. Last time I saw one of these I listed it on Wikipedia:Requested moves and was told that was the wrong place to list it. So where do I list this sort of thing? -- Roleplayer 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves (it took me a while to find a few days ago (and i had to use google to find it just now)) ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 01:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Roleplayer 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE WATCH THE DEMOCRACY ARTICLE

this article is in need of attention from experts in politicla science as well as experienced wikipedians for example: i have put up a header called "modern day context" and i don't think its very wiki(used an adjetive) i'd appreciate edits and contributions. thank you.Esmehwk 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Converting hiddenStructure in templates to the #if format

I was looking at the source of {{Infobox ski area}} and I noticed that it still uses the deprecated hiddenStructure hack. (I'm not exactly sure how it works, or how it was supposed to work, but I just know it's deprecated.) Is there someone out there who can convert the template? Or, is there a quick and easy guide to doing this conversion myself? I tried to do some work to convert it, but I couldn't quite get the formatting correct. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I figured out how to do this (finally). I think I wasn't properly using the {{!}} template to replace the pipe (|) character. In case anyone else is wondering how to do this, see this series of diffs. It's not the easiest process. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know of a project that ...

The Red Link Recovery project is, as a side effect of its normally activities, generating lists of articles that don't yet exist, but that have names very similar to articles that do already exist, for example Christmas pudding and Christmas Pudding. I can't help but think that it would be useful to create the missing articles in stub form and check that links to the pre-existing one aren't in fact intended for the newly created stub. The problem is that I've no idea who might be interested in carrying out such a task; does this fall within the scope of any existing cleanup projects? - TB 20:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with {{Satellites_of_Pluto}}

I'm replacing the old PNG for Pluto's monogram with a new SVG version. I made the switch on {{Satellites_of_Pluto}}. I really want to put a small margin above the top of the image, but I can't seem to get it to appear! Can someone help me with the wikisyntax here? Thanks, Starwiz 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR in Paleoconservatism

Well over a week ago, now, I pointed out that a rather large number of claims made in the Paleoconservative article were unsourced. I stated at the time that I would wait a week and then remove the unsourced claims.

A week passed. In that time, some sources were provided but many of them didn't actually support what they were being used to support. One user, User_talk:Yakuman, removed the ^{[citation needed]} tags saying only that he didn't need to provide sources. I readded them and copied and pasted the relevant Wiki policies from WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. He removed the tags again. I readded them. He removed the tags and put, in some sections where he removed the tags, a

tag. I put additional

tags in the rest of the sections where he had removed ^{[citation needed]} tags. He removed the

tags I had added. I readded them. This was quickly going nowhere and, having found myself in an edit war, I wanted to find an alternative approach to making the article policy compliant, so I asked if he'd like to get some mediation on the issue. He said yes. I made a request to the mediation cabal. User_talk:Yakuman's wrote a post there stating his side. I made a post there clarifying my position. User_talk:Yakuman's next post there was to the effect that he had no faith in the mediation cabal. The entire discussion there is here. User_talk:Cowman109 answered the request for mediation anyway. He made a couple of posts in the talk page for Paleoconservatism requesting me to point out the unsourced claims and reiterating the policy regarding claims needing to be sourced. I replied to the effect that the best way to do that was to readd the ^{[citation needed]} tags to the article and that, to keep things from getting overwhelming, we should hit one section at a time. So, I readded the ^{[citation needed]} tags to the first section. User_talk:Yakuman added sources. I reviewed those sources. They did not support the claims they were being used to support. User_talk:Cowman109 also reviewed the sources and came to the same conclusion. User_talk:Yakuman posted in the article's talk page that he had no faith in the mediation cabal. User_talk:Cowman109 tried to point out to him that he, Cowman109, didn't know Yakuman and, so, had no reason to be biased against him. The end result, however, was that Cowman109 has dropped out of the article's mediation process. Looking for an alternative mediation process, I went to the list of admins and found one. This was User_talk:Voice of All. I posted to his discussion page asking for assistance. Yakuman posted in Voice of All's discussion page behind me explaining his position. Voice of All, however, seems to be quite busy as he hasn't had the time to respond to the issue. User_talk:Yakuman has also taken it upon himself to scroll through my list of contributions so that he might attack me in other article talk pages (such as Affirmative Action in the United States which he then removed). One of the last things Cowman 109 did was point me here for help in addressing this issue, so I'm bringing the whole thing here.

-Psychohistorian 12:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you will find a step by step methodology for resolving disputes here -- Lost ^(talk) 12:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a policy dispute, not a content dispute. The dispute is whether or not all disputed content needs to be properly cited/sourced. -Psychohistorian 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

From where I stand a citation is also content. You also stated that it is about disputed content. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a dispute about the contents (in a macro sense) of the article. Logic says that WP:DR will thus be useful to you, surely? It will bring a structure to the issues you face and allow an outcome to be achieved, and is thus worth pursuing, isn't it? Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As per policy, the answer to your second question is yes. However, as mentioned by Fiddle Faddle, the dispute seems to have taken a different turn and WP:DR is a good place to resolve it -- Lost ^(talk) 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I HATE EDIT CONFLICTS!!!!!

Okay, so when I made my comment, I forgot to put the second parenthesis around Nichalp, so I went back to the editing page and corrected it. Then when I pressed "Save Page,"it said that there was an edit conflict. So I went back to the original page without my comment, wrote it in again, and pressed "Save Page." Suddenly, there were two comments, almost identical, except one had the second parenthesis and the other didn't. So I clicked on the un-parenthesis'd one to delete it. I did so, pressed "Save Page,"and it said --what else?-- that there was an edit conflict. So I went back to the Village Pump page and tried again. I saw that there were two responses to my request, which didn't show up on the Village Pump page (thanks, by the way.) I clicked on "Save Page" yet again, thinking that the edit conflict was over, but, no, it still persisted! Finally, I was just like "screw it," and I went back to the Village Pump page, and decided to write this rant explaining why there are two identical comments on the page, with only a parenthesis' difference between them. (Feel free to delete the comment that nobody responded to, and punctuate as needed.)

sigh* My WikiStress level just shot from a placid one to a raging four. I'm going to go check my watchlist and see if the Cleanup Taskforce finally gave me an assignment. Ellie041505 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Too bad our developers haven't developed bugzilla:1510, eh? — Omegatron 14:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

train stations categroy

is there a category for train stations? Qrc2006 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a complete project about train stations. You will find many relevant categories and other info there -- Lost ^(talk) 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

I'm pretty sure that "speciemens" should be "specimens" in the "Did you know..." section of the WP main page. Please see Banksia epica and http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/speciemen. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied to WPT:DYK -- Lost^(talk) 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Color issue

Please, someone with good knowledge of WP policies and color theory go here and give an opinion. Else it will to be a looooooooooooooooong talk.--Jollyroger 10:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

my graphics have been eaten?

Several of my graphics have gone missing. For instance and others. They don't show up in the deletion log as having been deleted, but they don't appear on the page anymore. The image page, instead of showing the image, shows a bluelink to the name, but clicking on that gives a "file not found" message. This has been true for several hours. Not all of the my images are affected. Anybody know what gives? Herostratus 18:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this is odd. On this page the graphic name redlinks and goes to the Upload page, but on other pages it blulinks with the text of the frame text replacing the graphic and goes to the image page (but no image appears, as told above). Herostratus 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your images seem to be fine, e.g. Image:Wikipedia_goldenbook.jpg, but the link you provided contains invisible unicode characters at the end. I presume you copy and pasted it from somewhere and that encoding incorrectly got tacked on. Try retyping the image names by hand. Dragons flight 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tou can see that graphic? Hunh, must be some wierdness in my browser... restarted... still not there... why only some graphics I wonder... oh well... thanks for your help. Herostratus 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the link here is almost certainly the Unicode directionality indicator, as discussed ar Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sunscreen affects visibility?. Perhaps the original issue was image server slowness? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmme... when I click on the link provided by Dragons flight, it goes to the image page. But instead of the image, it shows "Wikipedia_goldenbook.jpg‎ (19KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)" and Wikipedia_goldenbook.jpg is a bluelink. And hovering shows a URL for the bluelink of "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/Wikipedia_goldenbook.jpg", of which clicking on gives the message "Firefox can't find the file at /wikipedia/en/0/00/Wikipedia_goldenbook.jpg." Hmmm, what is the /0/00 ? It appears not to be Dragons fligh's link that is wrong. For at WP:SERVICE where the graphics also appear, same problem, although nothing has changed on that page from when it was working. It is the image page that is screwing up. It knows the image is there (else it would take me to the upload page), yet somehow is deciding to show, not the image, but a link to the image with /0/00 inserted. I restarted my machine, still same problem. What is this? Could you or someone be kind enough to go to WP:SERVICE and tell me if they see all the graphics, or what? I'd be grateful. Herostratus 03:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see 2 images at every row of SERVICE and the image page reached by following my image link above looks fine. Have you tried disabling any ad blocking/firewall software you might be using? Dragons flight 04:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Whatever it is, it must be local to my machine, then. Herostratus 07:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest you claim on the image description page that "Self-made. This a new version which consists entirely of self-made material"... Eh, Image:Wikipedia-logo.png isn't GFDL... Thanks/wangi 08:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly userbox question.

Of late I have become slightly enamoured of the idea of userboxes. I saw that there were some userboxes for high schools and colleges, and noticed that my high school and college wern't there. I decided to copy the code for a different high school and modify it for mine.

Low and behold, a lovely userbox in my high school's colors proclaming me to be a graduate of said school! User:ONUnicorn/Userbox.

Now... despite the fact that there it is in all its glory, I know I've not got something quite right. For one, I can't quite seem to figure out how to do the nifty thing where you get it to appear on a userpage with the User/whatever stuff in the brackets. For another, many userboxes add users to an appropriate category, and the box I copied does that, so I suppose this one should do it to, but it doesn't, probably because no category has been created for it to add people to. I don't suppose this is a big deal, but still.

Anyway, my main question has to do with getting it to do the thing that makes it easy for people to put it on their page. How do you do that?

I'd like to know and then go and create one for my college. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not appearing on your page because you forgot to capitalize the "u" in /Userbox. Fixed it for you, hope you don't mind. --tjstrf 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of Photos

I took some photos and I reserved all rights. Is it possible for me to upload a low resolution version to Wiki in GFDL, and retain the rights for the original high resolution version? Similary, may I publish part of a photo in GFDL, and retain the rights for the whole photo? Thanks.--Johnson Lau 08:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In short yes - see the detailed answer on your talk page. Thanks. Megapixie 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

King George's Fields

I have a challenge I am hoping to reach a consensus on. I want to state up front that, even if I do not agree with the consensus I am content with it.

Background

Another editor and I are in dispute over categorisation of King George's Fields. please see Category:King George's Fields for the category.

Currently the category contains several lists, almost all of which are incomplete, of places (by county) that have a King George's Field (This is a highly notable multiple location memorial to King George V of the UK, probably a unique memorial globally). There are 471 such fields in the UK, with a few more globally.

I have been running a personal mini-project to enter all the fields both into specialised lists and into the locations where they exist. as part of this I placed all the locations into Category:King George's Fields as well.

The dispute is because the other editor removed the individual location articles form the category and was not open to discussion. After admin advice I opened a case with the Mediation Cabal. Another editor has offered what I perceive to be a wise solution of a second category for "Settlements with a King George's Field" along the lines of Category:Fairtrade settlements (which has now become caught in the crossfire).

I believe that lists and categories are designed to co-exist. Each forms a different cataloguing function and each allows researches to find articles they might not otherwise find

Assistance desired

I would like to solve this by consensus. I am hoping simply that people will visit the various links, including the other editor's talk page, and the mediator's talk page where much of the discussion was taking place.

Ideally consensus should be reached at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24_Category_use_and_misuse#Discussion

I do apologise for the complexity of this really rather minor item. i have simply been told by the other editor that any attempt to categorise places as possessing a King George;s field will be reverted.

Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a solution to the mediation. The other user has "retired from wikipedia". The Village Pump is throwing up good suggestions for the underlying issue, so I'd love more of those, and even someone else who is as nutty and obsessive as I am to add the other King George's Fields (there are 471 in all) woudl be good fun Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs

Is this project actually proposing an article on every song ever released, regardless of whether or not it's even been released as a single? We have User:Andman8 creating an article on every cut on the album Mach 6 by an artist who is arguably not that well known, surely we don't need an article on every single song? I can bow to the idea of an article on songs that actually make important charts, but Andman8 is posting a Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs link on the Talk page of every single one of the album cut articles as if this is the goal of the project. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MUSIC/SONG for rough guidelines on whether songs deserve their own article or not. All of the articles for the tracks of Mach 6 have been converted into redirects to the main album page; none of the songs are notable by themselves —Mets501 (talk)

Trojan buried in link

I believe the a link on the "WEB BUG" entry contains a trojan program. My firewall flagged something when I clicked on it. A spyware scan found a trojan program that wasn't there before afterwards.

I don't know how to verify this.

THat page has at least four links. Which one? Also, firewalls and antivirus software sometimes incorrectly marks something as a trojan for seeking legitimate contact to your system. It would help if you told us which trojan it supposedly found. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Editor or Admin?

Hi, if there is a Sri Lankan admin or editor, or an admin or editor who speaks Sri Lankan and English I could use their help in communicating with User:Lahiru k about his edits. Looks like he's copying text from the Sri Lankan navy website, but asserting he has permission as a member of the navy. I've unspeedied some of his contributions while we're in negotiations, but the recent Sri Lankan medal articles contain text lifted directly from http://www.navy.lk/gallery/medals/medals.htm so are most likely a copyvio. The user seems well intentioned, but seems to lack knowledge of our policies, specifically Deletion and Copyright. exolon 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This same user is currently edit-warring and reverting my 'sources' and 'reads like a story' tags from Gamini Kularatne, and on my talk page has actually stated that he is the owner of the article and no one is allowed to touch it! Can someone who is more, uh, diplomatic than I take this guy aside and explain WP:OWN to him, among other things? wikipediatrix 21:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've sent them a hopefully helpful note. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

sex template

How can I add Analingus to the Sex template at the bottom of this page that is featured on many pages? Qrc2006 08:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit it. But all the pages that display the template need to have have their cached version purged. Wikipedia:Bypass your browser cache or add "?action=purge" (without quotes) to the end of the URL in your address bar. -- Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're asking how to edit the template. One way is to edit the page, then look for the links to templates used on that page at the bottom of the edit page. Another is to take the name of the template, add "Template:" to the front, put it in the search box, and hit Go. I also don't think it's necessary to purge the affected pages, their cached versions should expire automatically. Deco 08:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a block

Is it possible this IP can be blocked? It belongs to St Peters Lutheran College and it appears that it has made no constructive edits; it was just warned for vandalism on an article I happened to be viewing (a designated task) leading me to believe that somebody in the same room as me was the culprit. I’m User:Draicone; I’ll check my talk page a few hours from now if anyone has any questions. The school repeatedly blocks the &edit= string in the url so I doubt there will be any constructive edits. –Draicone 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (editing from 210.18.215.2)

That was me a few hours ago. The vandalism from the school's IP isn't much of a problem, but there have been repeated blocks and I just thought it was the best situation. I can discuss it with a relevant member of staff to see if internally blocking the &edit= string is possible to avoid unneccessary blocks. Any comments? --Draicone ^(talk) 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Eurocomicbox

Hi, I'm creating a new template (infobox) to be used in the articles for individual European comics, as a replacement for the (at least) three different ones used now. I have most of the content issues sorted out, but I'm stuck on a few (hopefully small) technical issues. I have explained it at Template talk:Eurocomicbox (section Current Issues). I would be very grateful if some people could take a look and give me some help on how to resolve these issues. Any kind of help is welcome (assistance, pointers, hints, ...). Thank you! Fram 20:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'll repost this at village pump (technical), which is probably the better place for my request. You're still welcome to contribute though! Fram 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It should not be this Hard

I am having an issue. On the 26th of august the following statement was removed from the Foresters Falls, Ontario article:

Foresters Falls is now a small community having digressed significantly since the invention of motorized transport.

This information was removed without any explanation. Because it is a factual peice of information I replaced it (aug 28th) and for safety sake put the book I had gotten it from as a referance. I explained my edit as "Facts are facts". I imagined that the matter would end here. Why would anyone insist on its removal after this point? The next day I saw that it had been removed again by the same user who explained "if it's a fact cite a reliable source". A simple enough request. I thought I had already done that but no matter. I renamed referances as sources, re-added the sentance again, explained this and left it. Within the hour my edit had been reverted and a message left on my user board saying "Your change to the page Foresters Falls, Ontario was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted". Needless to say I was a bit upset. Who determined this? who's POV about Foresters Falls is more important? What criteria are being used? I understand that the statement is not the most important ever but it certainly doesn't detract from the article. I have been attempting to have the user User:ArmadilloFromHell explain why he insists on it's absence but he will not answer my questions. I don't want to start harrassing people but I have no idea what to do. Here are a few of my questions:

has the community not gotten smaller?
was it not caused by the automobile?
have I not sourced the statement as asked?
is it not a fact?
is it not information?
does it not help inform people as to why foresters falls is not as large as it seemingly once was?
is it not the only peice of information in the article that bridges the span of time between 1870 and present?
is the usfullness of the edit the only criteria used to determine if it will be reverted or not?
Why it is better to not have the statement than to have it?
Does this information not answers a pertinant question left open by the article?
If I were to refrase the sentance would that be better?
What criteria was used to determine that it should be removed?
Why insist on the removal of this perfectly sensible statement?

I simply think that this edit was made in haste and I get the feeling that I've cause offence simply by questioning the logic behind it. I should be able to get answers to my questions the first time I ask them. What can I do? I can explain myself so I feel the information should go back up. User:ArmadilloFromHell has yet to give a valid rason for its removal yet seems to feel justified removing it whenever I put it back up. This should never have become such a big issue but I don't know what else to do.--Matt D 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing you might want to do if you re-add the statement, is to put the source as a footnote at the end of the sentence. There's a way you can do that using wiki markup. Look underneath the edit window and you'll see a box with wiki markup in it, including some that says ref. Putting the source between ref and /ref will make a footnote.

Doing that will let User:ArmadilloFromHell know that that book is the source of that statement. Then you might want to broach the subject on his talk page or the article's talk page to avoid this becoming a revert war. Hope that helps. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been leaving messages on their talk page for three days. I know that they have been on their talk page as they have left new messages during this time. They must be either too busy or just don't think I deserve a response. I will follow your advice though.--Matt D 00:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of the issue, I'd just like to mention that you probably meant "regressed" rather than "digressed". I can see how that might affect the apparent validity of your statement. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is a very important point.--Matt D 00:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now another question: With these two peices of advice is it ok for me to re-add the statement? because I'm getting the impression that User:ArmadilloFromHell is ignoring me and that I will never get a response from them. It would seem wrong if I suddenly needed their permission to add a referanced, factual, NPOV statement.--Matt D 00:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a safe assumption that your original sentence was removed because it was simply unintelligible, but "regress" is little better (why should you assume smaller is "backward") if "shrank" is what you mean. Why not say it clearly and your edits will more likely be treated with both comprehension and respect? alteripse 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

confused with internal links. One works, one doesn't work.

In the article about Aqaba airport I added the pointy brackets (these and these) to make out of Eilat airport and Ovda airport an internal link, making them clickable.

The link works fine for Ovda airport, but Eilat airport leads to a "editing Eilat airport" page. Which is confusing, because there is already an article about Eilat airport, whose www link looks exactly the same as the Ovda airport www link.

I tried the same in the sandbox (I mean, doing an internal link for Eilat, Ovda & Aqaba airport). Ovda woked, but Eilat and Aqaba didn't. Why? Did I miss anything? Thanks in advance. --Soylentyellow 22:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, Aqaba airport also doesn't work, but there is an article. With pointy brackets I meant these: two times this [ and two times this ]--Soylentyellow 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Try Aqaba Airport and Eilat Airport with a capital A for airport MilborneOne 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that works. --Soylentyellow 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Template question

It has been suggested that for the restructuring work on list of esoteric programming languages, I should be using templates instead of hand-coding the table header and entries. By using templates, it should be easier to change the formatting in the future. My question is, however, where should I create these templates, and with what name? There would be three templates - a table header, an entry template, and a table footer (for neatness). LinaMishima 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How much vandalism is required to justify semi-protection?

Please give me a numerical estimate - for example, 10 vandal edits in 24 hours.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no set guideline. One reason is that, if we said it was 10 occurrences in 24 hours, then some vandals would deliberately vandalize only 9 times in 24 hours and move on. However, if you consult Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy and look under the section "How much vandalism is enough?", you will find one person (presumably an admin) who says that 15 occurrences in a day is the minimum threshold. I think the number will vary and I will also comment that semi-protection is meant as a temporary measure. If a page is getting vandalized that often, it is probably a single editor or group of editors and they should be warned and disciplined via blocking and banning if necessary.

Protection and semi-protection are meant as responses to current and ongoing vandalism and not as preventive measures against possible future vandalism.

I noticed that your User page was vandalized a few days ago and somebody (maybe even me, I don't remember) reverted it.

I presume your query is about some other page since your User page doesn't seem to be getting a high rate of vandalism although I understand that any vandalism of one's User page feels like a personal attack. Some people take a light-hearted approach and keep a counter on their User page saying "This page has been vandalized X times".

--Richard 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Suitable for Wikipedia...?

Howdy, strangers. Been away a long time and I'm getting back into the swing of things over here.

I've been busy on smaller wikis, especially hobby-related sites. This is an article I did at a couple of wikis, including radiocontrol.wikia.com. The guy who makes these products has come a long way in a short time, but I'm not sure about how notable this product would be for inclusion in Wikipedia. If it doesn't ring the bell, that's OK. Just wondering. Thanks, all! - Lucky 6.9 07:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:Notability, which should be a great first port of call for you. There is also a good discussion at User:Uncle G/On notability that is helpful Fiddle Faddle 08:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips. It's such a borderline subject based on the notability rules and of such extremely narrow interest that I think I'll leave the article where it's at. Again, thanks! - Lucky 6.9 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Image to Commons

Somebody else has moved one of my Wikipedia images to Wikimedia Commons, can they do that ! MilborneOne 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, providing you released it under a suitable license. In fact, any image that can be moved to Commons by its owner with no change of license can also be moved by any other person. Deco 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, provided they also copy all the information from the image info page so you are still credited and no info is lost. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

marketing account?

Can someone take a look at User:Arcaddmarketing (contribs). From this account's edits, it seems to be an account blatantly dedicated to promoting a particular architectural firm (ARCADD, Inc.).

Thanks.

—Steven G. Johnson 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What should be done with the La-la land article?

I came across this article, La-la land, after attempting to revert an anonymous vandal attacking Jimbo Wales' user page. The La-la land article does not seem encyclopediac (in fact, it looks like something for Uncyclopedia), so what should be done with it? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Except for some clear vandalism, it's always been a redirect to Los Angeles, which seems appropriate. Herostratus 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The vandalism was reverted a couple of minutes after I posted here/spotted it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User with inapprorpriate username

Is there anywhere I should go to post a comment about a user with an inappropriate username - in this case User:Stringbot. The user is not a "bot". I suspect the user is not maliciously trying to pretend to be a bot - just ignorance. — Tivedshambo (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a section on usernames. Durova 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Try telling the user first. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

When to split a page

A week ago, I made a proposal to split the Tailgating article, and it got one positive response and no objections. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Summary or multi-stub pages warns not to split pages without consensus, and while I don’t think that one response counts as consensus, I don’t really expect anyone else to chime in on what seems to be a pretty low-traffic page. What’s my next course of action? --Rob Kennedy 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts to the articles talk page. --Mark S (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Image on Jasper High School

I need help to find the correct free tag for the picture of the campus on the Jasper High School article. I'm clueless...

--Longhornsg 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

afd

an article i wrote about a mayor but someone afd'd it, what are the guidelines for notability for a city's mayor (Ruth Atkin or Emeryville, California) its a very important city, even thought its rather small, its the friggin HQ of the pharmeceutical industry for the west coast like san josé is to computers, the city hosts Pixar Animation studios, its almost like Universal City or Paramount in Southern California, the population about 7K is substantially higher due to a huge housing boom recently and a giant mall was just buildt too! i think its notable, is it? Qrc2006 23:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say the city is notable, the mayor is not unless she does something interesting. Just my opinion. -A neighbor who grew up in El Cerrito and sometimes shops in Emeryville, Steve Dufour 03:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Zen Collaboration

There's a new Zen Collaboration. If you want to get involved please leave a message on the discussion page. :) Rentwa 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Chav spamming it up on Microscope

Some Chav keeps inserting crap about elves on the Microscope article, can someone protect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The velociraptor (talk • contribs)

While I can see you are upset about rubbish being added to Microscope, I don't really think the words Chav and crap are wholly appropriate. Expressing yourself like that like that tends to lose you community support however much you are in the right about the factual elements you are concerned about. Indeed, the fact that an anonymous editor is making the undesirable edits does not give you the right to breach WP:Civility. We need to remain civil however trying the behaviour of others is, especially with vandals. If you have not already done so, you may make a case for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which is substantially more efficient than placing a message here asking for someone to protect the page. Looking at the page history I feel this is unlikely to be accepted, since the problem is not particularly frequent, but my opinion certainly does not remove your right to make the request. Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User Hephaestos - I want to contact him

I found that User Hephaestos has uploaded an image which, according to one of my contacts, is accidentally reversed (left and right side exchanged). I wanted to contact him about this issue and found that his user page has been semi-protected, and that he has been inactive for quite some time (people are missing him, and left notices to that effect on his talk page). What should I do? I want to rectify that image... --Kauko56 23:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the image in question? -- Infrogmation 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Eyes needed to look at possible inappropriate image

I'm cross posting below for a wider view a comment I've just added to the talk page of Childhood obesity.

I'm very uneasy about this picture, and think it should be removed. The content of the image, the context in which it appears, and the caption all appear to be derogatory of the child. Whether that's intentional or not doesn't perhaps matter: what matters is how the message of the image will be perceived by the viewer. Now, if this were a picture of a consenting adult, I'd have no problems with it, but there's no indication that the subject, and perhaps more importantly her parents, consented either to the picture being taken or to its use in what I believe to be a derogative context. Now, there may under US, UK and other laws be no requirement for such consents to be obtained, but neverleless we ought in all decency to refrain from using identifiable pictures of minors in this way. Consider the effect on her when (and I say when, not if) her classmates see the page and she has to endure the resultant taunts. User:Corinthian suggests above that it will be a "proud day ... for her". I venture to suggest, to the contrary, that she will be devastated, as will her parents.

Is there an experienced admin who could comment on this? Is it approriate to remove this image even before a better one becomes available? --MichaelMaggs 16:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has edited the picture to obscure her face. That is certainly an improvement. Steve Dufour 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a large (no pun intended) legal issue if the picture originated in the European Economic Area (EEA), because it is considered to be "Personal Data" in that it, alone, or with other information in or likely to come into the possession of the viewer, is capable of identifying the individual. It will probably be being used without permission of the individual within it, and will probably have been unlawfully exported from the EEA.

While the probability is small the possibility exists. The attributions of the defaced picture and the original picture do not state the nation of source, so it would be wisest to replace this picture in its entirety with one where full permission has been granted for it to be released into the public domain, this time by the subject of the picture, not just by the copyright owner.

I know this is pedantic and nit-picky, but it is the safest course of action for Wikipedia.

Equally, imagine being that child and seeing that picture. She may be obese, poor thing, but at that age it is hardly by her own choice, since parents control availability of foodstuffs. She will be mortified, and may be in a position to bring an action in any jurisdiction.

My advice would be to remove both pending a properly permissioned picture.

Fiddle Faddle 14:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding out more about a block

I have found out that a certain admin has been blocked. As far as I can make out this was for pursuing a potential copyvio/breach of NPOV issue relating to an image. In fact I had specifically asked him to take up the question for me (early August, before I went on holiday), since he was an admin that I had seen working rigorously and fairly with another use of an image and I am not at all familiar with the rules on use of images. I am left with a number of questions. Who can block an admin and under what circumstances? How can I find out more about this particular decision to block? Can I find out what the evidence is against him so I can start to work out whether I think it is fair or not? After that, can I make a comment on his behalf? Thanks. Itsmejudith 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Who can block an admin? Any admin.
Under what circumstances? Under Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
How can I find out more about this particular decision to block? Ask the blocking admin. You can find out the blocking admin from the block log (no relation :) ).
Can I find out what the evidence is against him ... ? Yes, by asking the blocking admin.
After than, can I make a comment on his behalf? Yes, by talking to the blocking admin.

If the blocking admin is not responsive, you can post questions of this nature to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. :-- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The blocking log should also contain a short explanation of the reason behind the block. Deco 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Research on Wikipedia Project - Need a bot

I'm a social scientist doing research on the wikipedia project, and I was wondering if anyone would be willing to help me out. I need a program that will basically locate wikipedia entries randomly (like on the homepage sidebar) from the Core Wikipedia topics. Then I need to collect a starndard set of information from those pages: word counts, number of contributors, number of times the page has been edited, etc. Is anyone tech savy enough to program a bot for me and willing to do so? You'd get a shout-out in my article, if it ever gets published.

Thanks! 165.124.166.149 23:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Bokonon6 [email protected]

mentoring

I understand the need to read manuals and find information on editing/creation of articles on ones own. However, I find myself constantly stalling on edits and unwilling to take the plunge. It would be nice to have some kind of initial peer review and/or someone to ask questions to in real time.

Any suggestions? Any volunteers?

What's your approximate age and what would you like to write about? I suspect someone similar would be happy to help you get started. alteripse 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a 22 year old male and have attempted to start and edit articles about a variety of topics. I began by looking at areas of my home town that weren't adecuately covered and have pretty much been bouncing around. I'm having some difficulties with style and general conventions. More importantly I'm having difficulties commiting my mistakes to paper (so to speak). RichMac 03:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a concept of wikiprojects where people with like minded interests work together to make a specific topic better. Here's a list for you. You may consider joining one and people with similar interests are likely to aid you whether in creating articles or making them better -- Lost^(talk) 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Mentorship. These volunteers usually help with people who are involved with some stage in the dispute resolution process, but an editor can request a mentor for any reason. I suspect the volunteers there would be delighted to help a newcomer who wants to get off on the right foot before making any mistake. Best wishes, Durova 00:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

article submission

I've written an article in my personal space. I think it's redy for review.

How do I submit it?

Use the "Move this page" link. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To provide a bit fuller response, what User:Zoe is saying is that it is not required that the article be reviewed prior to being put into article mainspace. You can just be bold and move the page to a title of your own choosing (provided that title is not already being used).

However, if you really want a review prior to moving the article into mainspace, you can submit a request for feedback and someone will review your article and give you suggestions for improvement.

If you need further assistance, just ask here.

--Richard 05:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

What is the template for the 'citation needed' superscript?Nihilistz 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are looking for {{fact}}. --TeaDrinker 18:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much stalking info in Star Wars kid article

I think so anyway. What I specifically object to is that the name of his neighborhood in Quebec is given in the first sentence. Why do we need to know that? He is (or was) an Internet phenomenon, however in real life he is not a public figure, besides being a teenager still. I took the information off twice but it was quickly put back on. Steve Dufour 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

it should remaine, if someone tracks him down with information such as what neighborhood, its that persons fault, i should add thst this information is probably redidly available on the internet, anyone who knows his name and city can easyly find his address, birth certificate, social, etc with relative ease and for whatever intetnions they wish Qrc2006 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The WP:BLP policy disagrees with you.

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.

Since he isn't noteworthy for being a person from so-and-so neighborhood, that information should be removed. Ken Arromdee 03:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ken. I see that the personal information has been taken off. I also found out that what I thought was the name of a neighborhood in the city of Quebec was really a town in the province of Quebec. However I don't think that makes any difference in this case. Steve Dufour 19:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

protection

how can i get an article unprotected? Qrc2006 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Read there. You can place {{Editprotected}} on an articles talk page to request unprotection. Or place a request here. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

blocked

i was blocked from the template :STD/STI that i created after a dispute over whether hepatitis C should be included after someone rm it and then i put it back. i did not violate the 3rr at all, i tried talking to the user Samir but he was unresponisve. and still is. i can now, ot work on the template which has just layed there, to add crabs i had to use the help of another person. i think i was blocked unfairly and want to be unblocked. the only other thing that happend was that i refered to his rm hep c as vandalism in the edit summary and someone else told me that can be considered a personal attack, but i apologized Qrc2006 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your Talk Page and Samir's Talk Page, it appears that this issue has been resolved.

--Richard 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

cite templates malformat link

I'm having a problem with {{cite news}} in the article Carole Shorenstein Hays. The resulting link is scrambled (the URL is visible, and the title refuses to be the anchortext for the link). I've used the cite templates before and never had this problem, and I've looked at other usage and my usage seems consistent. I tried a lot of variations with whitespace and parameter order and other things that shouldn't matter. I tried {{cite web}} as well, same result. Does this look like a familiar problem to anyone? Am I just being a bonehead? Cleduc 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the line break between the title and the subtitle. Templates cannot have line breaks in them. Remove the line break after the “Second Acts:” part. --Rob Kennedy 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Code

{{cite news | url = http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/31/CMGRU94B771.DTL | title = Second Acts: San Francisco's Carole Shorenstein Hays has built a career on Broadway by taking calculated risks | date=2004-10-31 | first=Steven | last=Winn | work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] }}

Rendered

Winn, Steven (2004-10-31). "Second Acts: San Francisco's Carole Shorenstein Hays has built a career on Broadway by taking calculated risks". San Francisco Chronicle.

You have some sort of invisible illegal character around "San Francisco's". Here's a rendering that works:

{{cite news | url = http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/31/CMGRU94B771.DTL | title = Second Acts: San Francisco's Carole Shorenstein Hays has built a career on Broadway by taking calculated risks | date=2004-10-31 | first=Steven | last=Winn | work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] }}

Becomes

Winn, Steven (2004-10-31). "Second Acts: San Francisco's Carole Shorenstein Hays has built a career on Broadway by taking calculated risks". San Francisco Chronicle.

--Rehcsif 18:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

admin

i just ran for admin, and i lost 92.85% to 7.14%, i would really like to be an admin, what should i do, when is too soon to try again, can i do it romrrow? Qrc2006 19:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were you, I would hang around for the next 6-8 months; continue working on improving articles, and read the policy pages. Learn how the community is supposed to work. Learn to spell. Be polite to other users. Then, read the pages that are specific to admins. Learn what they are and what they do. Ask yourself if you really need those tools and that power to do what you enjoy doing on Wikipedia. Then, if you still want to be an admin, reapply. Don't reapply tomorrow, whatever you do. Learn what's going on here, and how to conduct yourself like a Wikipedian before asking to be an admin. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I read through your RFA and have the following suggestions based on what I saw there.

First, let me reiterate what User:ONUnicorn said: I strongly advise you against re-applying tomorrow or next week. Probably not even next month. Reapplying tomorrow is likely to get you blocked. User:Masssiveego got blocked for what was considered a "joke RFA". Now his circumstances are different from yours. However, if you reapply any time in the next couple weeks, you may get the same treatment. This is not a threat. I am not an admin and I do not have the power to block you. All I'm doing is describing what has happened to others in the past.

Next, you need to understand that your RFA was snowballed which means that it was shut down early to avoid a "pileup" in which an embarassingly large number of "Oppose" votes are cast. As a result, not all of the reasons for rejecting your application were posted. I will try to cover some of the reasons here.

You should realize that reapplying next week, next month or next year will not result in a different result unless you change some things about the way you participate in Wikipedia.

A first step is for you to read the reasons given for the "Oppose" votes on your own RFA. Understand them and take to heart the fact that every one of these comments will be raised again in any future applications that you make. You must work to address those issues and more before you will successfully apply for adminship.

First off, you must absolutely clean up your language as it is considered by many to be uncivil and therefore a violation of WP:CIV. The language is only a first step. You also need to clean up the tone and attitude of your interaction with others. You will not ever be granted adminship until you change this and, even after you do, you will have to convince people that this kind of behavior is truly a thing of the past. Frankly, I'm surprised that no one has blocked you for incivility. I would say that you've been skating on thin ice and would urge you to clean up your act post-haste.

If and when you do reapply for adminship, you will be asked to account for your past incivility. If you cannot show that there has been a dramatic change, you will not pass. Once again, this is not a threat, just a prediction based on past history of other RFAs. I have read enough RFA applications to know that this is a recurrent theme in failed applications.

Secondly, you have made an impressive number of edits in the 5 months since you joined Wikipedia. However, the vast majority of these are in article mainspace and a small minority have been in Talk space, Wikipedia space and Wikipedia talk space. For comparison, you and I have been members of Wikipedia for approximately the same amount of time. Look at this breakdown of your contributions and the breakdown of my contributions. I'm not saying that I'm perfect but people will look at your low number of contributions in spaces outside the article main space and consider that as a point against you.

How do you raise the number of your contributions in other spaces? First, spend more time communicating with other users in the Talk Pages of articles and on the User Talk Pages. Also, get involved with voting on WP:AfD and WP:RfA. There are many other ways to get involved in what is called Wikipedia project space. WP:AfD and WP:RfA are just the two that I happen to be most involved in. Many editors conclude that if you are active in Wikipedia space then you might have some inkling of what Wikipedia policy is.

Your RFA was SNOWballed before there was any opportunity to discuss your knowledge of policy. Maybe you've read up on policy and just haven't made any edits in Wikipedia space. On the other hand, if you need to read up on policy, you should consult the administrator's reading list. I am working my way through this reading list right now.

You should also read the Administrator's how-to guide.

You might also learn a lot by reading the RFA's of others, especially those that fail. If you understand why people oppose others, you can work towards not having them vote against your RFA for the same reasons.

Specific to your recent RFA, a lot of RFA voters judge harshly any RFA that is not correctly formed according to the instructions. Rightly or wrongly, they conclude that if you can't follow the instructions to apply for an RFA the right way, then you might not be able to follow the instructions for the many policies and procedures that an admin must know and follow. This was brought up as a peremptory reason why your RFA should be rejected early. Read and understand Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. Follow the instructions TO THE LETTER, taking care not to omit any steps.

Finally, there is a program at WP:ESPERANZA called Admin coaching which will not guarantee that you pass an RFA but it will help you become the kind of Wikipedian that is considered a good candidate for adminship. You may wish to consider requesting a coach. The backlog is about three months long but, trust me, if you will need at least 3-6 months to prepare for your next RFA. Heck, it will take that long for people to consider your past incivility to be "ancient history".

Good luck. I hope to see your next RFA succeed.

--Richard 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion, Deletion review need monitoring

I made a brief visit to AFD and DRV, and quickly found 2 (fairly obvious) overriding reasons to overturn descisions at DRV. I also quickly found a discrepancy on Articles for deletion. This all within maybe 5-10 minutes. I get the impression that these processes are not being monitored all that well.

Could some experienced users and experienced admins please volunteer to monitor these processes more closely?

Kim Bruning 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Monitoring them is one thing, but making sure the arguments for or against deletion are coherent is another. The pleasing thing is that they are not a ballot. However I do feel that the closing admin sometimes treats them like a ballot, though I have no ability to back this statement up.

Equally, it is by no means clear that those who express an opinion have read the article concerned. There is often a hint of herd mentality, perhaps because AfD gives every editor the same apparent power of "life or death" for an article.

There is an interesting discussion at present which is challenging and will require a good closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) where there is a difference of interpretation over what is a POV fork and whether an article should have been split. Potentially your concerns will either be allayed or reinforced by your view of the eventual outcome.

Noting that the deletion process is imperfect, how would it be improved? What would you do to seek to ensure that all those with opinions on deletion of an article had read the article and were not voting (for example) politically?

Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's start by getting some more sane people to go in and look things over. I could have happened to have gotten a bad sample, after all.

Of course, it's always handy if some of those sane people also participate and give a good example.

Any volunteers?

Kim Bruning 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Kim, we are all sane! Many of us participate, and many of us make genuine misjudgements. Quis custodiat custodies? Or is this more a Caesar's Wife thing? Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some are more sane/experienced than others? O:-) Kim Bruning 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I try to keep an eye on AfD, especially in cases were people are crying 'cruft' without any other actual reasoning. LinaMishima 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you be more specific about the problems you see with those two processes? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I regularly check PROD and AfD for articles that do not deserve to be deleted. (Although I occasionally lean the opposite way and cast a delete vote.) There are far too many entries for any one person to thoroughly check, however, so my usual goal is to find one article every day that deserves to be saved. It's a rare day that I don't succeed, although I'm not always in the majority opinion. — RJH (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Question on character name

Not sure if this is the right page for this or not, if it isn't, please direct me to the right one. ^^;;

Now, here's my question: On the Cipher Pol page, we're having a bit of a problem deciding how to write a character's name. The character's name in Japanese is ジャブラ, which is romanized in the Hepburn style of romanization as "Jabura". The character has yet to appear in the English manga or anime, and won't for some time. The author himself has never written the character's name out, meaning there is no "official" spelling of the name... Fans, however, refer to the character as "Jyabura", which is a slightly more obscure romanization (not technically correct, but is a system used by many Japanese speakers (including native speakers) anyway). This name brings up far more hits on Google, as well as being what all scanlations and fansubs use. Which brings us to the problem...

The article currently uses the name as "Jyabura", as it is the most common use of the name. However, we are trying to figure out whether we should use it as it is more common, or use "Jabura", as it is more correct. Any help we could have would be appreciated. ^^ Murasaki Seiko 05:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The more common name is more encyclopedic. ANON 9/12/06

Oh, great, One Piece character romanization... I'd go with the Hepburn, per WP:MOS-JP. --tjstrf 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Spam linker to www.sharewareebooks.com

I've ran into two users, both posting a link to www.sharewareebooks.com as their first link, here and here. If it were one user or IP, it'd be easier to see if there were many posts, but I don't know how to run them down.--Prosfilaes 05:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch can be used to find links to a specific URL. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

There's a page on wikipedia that's about a fairly notable topic and is close to FA status, but is an almost daily target for vandalism. (I'll avoid mentioning the article name here as that might invite even more silliness. Besides there undoubtedly are other pages out there with the same issue.) The vandalisms are performed on a nearly daily basis by anonymous accounts, and today I counted close to a dozen nonsense edits that had to be reverted. I tried bringing the page to the attention of the wikipedia group that's supposed to handle this sort of thing but it appears as if not much happened. (Unfortunately there are occasionally good edits by anonymous accounts as well, so the changes have to be individually checked.)

This is the sort of immature silliness that drives away subject matter experts and good quality editors. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You could request semi-protection for the article. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And you can do that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection --Richard 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! — RJH (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is experiencing technical difficulties...

I've been getting an error message that says basically that about one out of every 5 page views for the better part of a week now. In addition, when it does work the site seems to be quite slow. Am I alone in this problem, or are others seeing this unusually high error rate too? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Over the last hour or so it's gotten a lot worse. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here, it especially hates diff links. I've also had to begin doing a ?action=purge of every single page I load in order to make it display the new version. --tjstrf 20:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

West Sumatra

Hi. Something has happened to the West Sumatra page. It appears to have been deleted, but the Talk page and this history of the page is still present. Can someone (an administrator) please recover the page, since I don't see any reason why is should have been deleted. Thanks.

(MichaelJLowe 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

I don't see any problem with that page. You may have encountered a temporary glitch.-gadfium 06:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Brown Rat

When I GO to Brown Rat, I get a page that says there's no such article, but that includes quite a bit of commentary on Brown Rats. When I look at the history of that Brown Rat article, there's lots of it, including a complete article. I don't find an indication that the major article has been deleted, but it has. I smell a rat. Can someone who knows more than I do please look into this? Lou Sander 23:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem on that page. Maybe there was a temporary glitch.-gadfium 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Get credited for contributions made with IP address

I made some contributions before opening an account and would like them to be credited to my account name. I would think that this is a common request but I searched around for an hr and couldn't find anything about it. Is it possible to do this myself, and if so how? Can a sysop do this for me, if so who should I contact about it. Perhaps if I contribute significantly to wiki and are around long enough, I can earn the right to do ask for this? Or is this kinda thing never done for anybody? Or is it a common thing to do? DougCube 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be disappointed, but here is the answer: Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. I had the same Q yesterday, and found it by drilling down from: Help:Contents/Account settings and maintenance. --Jtir 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

LegalMatch

About half a year ago, the LegalMatch article was nominated for deletion, because the article was an ad. The company had notability though, because it's involved in some controversies. Now some people are (slowly) trying to add to the article, which due to the controversies is bound to be somewhat negative toward the company. When I look into the editing history, there's some kind of really slow revert war going on about allegations regarding their bar status and whatever. Also I see edits with summaries like 'edited for more accuracy' while the edit is just removing information.

I didn't do any research about who's right and who's wrong, but a lot of the edits are just clearly people with an axe to grind on the one side, and people with an investment in the company on the other side. I don't have the time and energy keep up with it.

I think that, due to the controversies with the company, the only way to go forward with this article is to have clear references backing up all claims that are being thrown around, and to have neutral people watching so it doesn't end up owned by either of the groups of people. Would anyone mind adding the article to their watchlist and keeping a strong eye on it? Thanks!

Tinus 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

extraneous links on Category:Disambiguation_and_redirection_templates page

There are two extraneous links on the Category:Disambiguation_and_redirection_templates page.

--Jtir 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick work. And thanks for the welcome msg. Jtir 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How does one determine if a proposed article has previously been created and deleted?

I am considering creating an article about Crow Island School in Winnetka, Illinois, built 1940. It is important architecturally, designed by Eliel Saarinen (father of Eero Sarinen). It was built to facilitate the educational philosophy of progressive education. see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22crow+island+school%22 In 1956 it was named 1st among schools in "most important buildings of the past 100 years of architecture in America" in a poll by Architecture Magazine. It is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Yet every day I see deletionists removing articles about scores of elementary schools on the grounds that they are not notable. If it has had an article previously deleted, I will not waste my time. Is there any master list where I can see if there has ever been an article about Crow Island School which was deleted?Edison 04:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is recorded in the deletion log. So if the article was named Crow Island School, then its deletion log is here, which says that an article with this name has not been created before -- Lost^(talk) 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Impersonator

There is a fake user by the name of User:GiIIiamJF who is impersonating me, User:GilliamJF. He has vandalized my user page and has edited some of the same articles that I have. Please block him immediately. Thanks. - GilliamJF 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. GilliamJF 01:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. If something similar occurs again, WP:AN/I is actually the better place for listing this. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

how to report vandalism

someone vandalismed the Trinity Christian Academy article, an anonomous user removed a section on a student who was expelled for being gay, this is the third time it has been removed. mayby semiprotection?Qrc2006 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You can request, if needed, (semi) protection of an article here. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Garion96 (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left a template on that anonymous IP's talk page. Warning templates are available at Template:TestTemplates. Durova 15:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

finding users

how can i find other lgbt users? or users with other interests, i know there are categories like that. lgbt users, african american users, etc. where can i flip thru them, im especially interested in them. and can i add tags to my page like that? Qrc2006 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userboxes. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned talk pages

Talk:Rippaz_inc(and others presumably) has no associated article - Is this incorrect and where do I report it? JPilborough 20:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mets501 already deleted it. The next time you enounter such a talk you can speedy delete it with {{db-talk}}. Garion96 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Treybien (talk · contribs) no edit summarries

the individual has made hundreds of edits without a single edit summary. I left him a message reminding him to do so, and his response was to blank it, get this, without an edit summary. This isn't new behaviour his talk shows a reminder from back in May so he should be well aware he should be using edit summaries. Anyone else want to take a stab at this and maybe get the point across?--Crossmr 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't mandatory just strongly recommended. If they were mandatory, the Wiki software would enforce it. Instead, there is a preference to ask for a reminder if the edit summary is left blank. The individual in question is within his rights to leave off the edit summaries. Lest you think I am being obstreperous, I use edit summaries practically 100% of the time. I'm just pointing out the state of current policy. --Richard 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The important question to ask is "What would the edit summaries add?" On uncontentious matters, such as simple spelling, grammar and wikilinks, they're not vital. But they're handy when working on busy articles, or when doing refactoring to explain your reasons. If they're unwilling to explain their reasons for such things at all, we have a problem. Otherwise it's just a pain. LinaMishima 18:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see an issue where someone is actively avoiding edit summaries, and when reminded that its a good idea to use them, they turn around and blank that reminder with no explanation. They were previously reminded of it and made no comment on it then. If more than one person were reminding me to do something and I felt I had a good reason for not doing it, I'd probably explain rather than just blank their request and ignore it. To me that borders on uncivil.--Crossmr 21:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the real issue is whether the edits themselves are good quality. It appears that edit summaries "matter" if the editor wishes to become an Admin, otherwise they are simply good practice. Fiddle Faddle 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I left a note on the user's Talk Page explaining why he/she should use edit summaries. However, if he/she refuses to, then it is just inconsiderate Wiki editing. It's not an actionable offense, though. I believe users are justified in blanking their talk pages provided they are not blanking warnings about vandalism, incivility, edit warring, etc. --Richard 08:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

From the various things I've heard, people frown on it, and its not like this was being blanked for archiving or anything else, it appears that as soon as he read it, he turned around and removed it. Thats actively ignoring a good faith comment from another user and I consider that to be uncivil. --Crossmr 14:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly suggest forgive and forget. There are windmills to tilt at that are far more fun. Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin needed to close a few Requested moves

Hi, I have noticed that a few requested moves that I proposed haven't been carried out, despite consensus (or lack of objection) to do so. I would do them myself, but the target pages all have histories:

Current Name	Target Name	Voting
NASA Shuttle Landing Facility	Shuttle Landing Facility	1 Support, 0 oppose
Atlas V rocket	Atlas V	3 Support, 0 oppose Note: There is an old RM on this page as well, please don't get confused.
John F. Kennedy Space Center	Kennedy Space Center	4 Support, 1.5 oppose

Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You want WP:AN. Viridae ^Talk 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Move page marked as minor?

I just performed a move for the first time. For some odd reason, in the history my edit summary is marked with an m, which generally means minor. I don't recall checking the minor edit box, and don't consider a move a minor edit. Is this done automatically for moves? Also, at the destination it's marked minor but not at the source. Check my contributions to see what I'm talking about. Is that automatic? Or did I check the box by mistake? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

^ Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Durova.

[1] Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Durova.

[1]

How many articles from non-English wiki have equivalents on English wiki?

Mark Fairfax-Harwood

Accidentally found a sockpuppet of a blocked user

Biological distribution maps

Goosebumps

Publications collaboration

Why

I do help

heloio

User name

Hello

Article Removed

Requesting a permablock for myself

Searchable Wikipedia FAQ

Citing pdfs on the web

Question on state templates

Need Help With External Links

Feedback for portal

WHY is NOT Wikimedia's proxies valid now in mainland China?

Jyrascope

Bot account for AWB/other semi automated edits

Citation tag question

Moving templates to the left

Copyright problem

How to hand out barnstars

Citing things which are said in an audio interview

learning to make typo-free redirects.

Cleaning up top of Talk Page

Need help soliciting Wikipedians to collaborate on articles.

Identification of Slavic(?) language?

Founding a Project/Portal

How do I get into the Unusual Requests page?

Agencia Brasil Phot Archive

county infbox

Wikipedia self-referencing

More general concept Coelenterata redirecting to Cnidaria

Autoblocks

Hello

Gmail

Wikiproject MusicBrainz

Renaming an article

For other uses...

Searching for images

Inclusion of a newspaper front page

Self-Promotion on WikiP

See also: List of...

Experienced Wikipedia Users needed.

Does this constitute a 3RR violation, and by whom?

F-words on admin's user page.

Anon problem

End of term in the United States before the Twentieth Amendment

Vandalism

Bad good sources.

RFA Voting

Probable notable-editor welcome procedure?

How do I request article?

Any inclusion policy on commercial items?

Cris Collingsworth

So much Drama in the LBZ...

Stuff

Nutty refs on Jaguar

copyvio dispute

Public relations agencies editing articles of their clients

mystery text on Robin Blaser

Playboy models of the day

Pages without interlanguage links

vandalism

Image cleanup

vandal/sock puppet/IDK what but its bad

Trying to change sig

Complex problem with editorial dispute

Sig/Font

Stubs

Added to Playmate's Discussion Page--Now What?

Requesting assistance with table footnotes

Moving talk pages

User:Aiman abmajid

Brigham Young University--Image

Is there a Greek speaker in the house?

Where do I list a cut and paste move?