Farsi Speaker Wanted
I'm looking for someone to help out on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page, to verify some Farsi links. I have no clue where to go for help. I tried posting on Talk:Persian language and got my talk page newbified. I tried posting on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Iran and nobody has responded. I'm at my wits end about this. There should be some sort of mechanism to solve this, but I don't know what it is.
So, if you know Farsi, or know where this request could be made where someone will actually pick it up and run with it, please let me know. As I have stated, I would be more than happy to trade off work and review any article that needs it. Vir4030 17:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm going to be of absolutely no help with your actual request, but I have some ideas for other places to look: Category_talk:User_fa might gain you someone, or Wikipedia:Local_Embassy#Persian lists one user here who happens to be a Bureaucrat at the Persian Wikipedia. You might try the talk page at the Persian version of the article, but I have no idea how they'll take to a English language request, though... good luck! -- nae'blis 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that's quite helpful... I'll try them. I'm still going to keep the tag in place for now, though, because I'd like all the ideas I can get. Vir4030 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think this is right. I'm not looking for factchecking or anything. I'm looking to clean up an article by having the Farsi references validated. Vir4030 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you haven't already found it, Wikipedia:Translators available is probably the best place for help. While it is primarily intended for help translating wikipedia articles from other languages, it's probably the best place to look for people for help translating/checking sources too. There are 3 Persian - English translators listed BTW. 18.104.22.168 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
About the Mozilla Firefox article
Hi Vir and Merry Christmas,
I've just read that you were going to bring the Firefox article back to FA status. One thing that all people committed to quality (and I think I'm paranoid about this) should push for is an SCM system. Everyone here seems to talk about Featured Articles but what we actually get is a Featured Version (which can become the worst entry in the world just one edit later). I'm astonished at how people don't realize that the concept of *featured article* is almost a non-sense with the current Wikipedia policies. I'd be interested to collect a fair number of programmers who agree on this, so that we could come up with a concrete proposal. I'm pretty convinced that we should create an ad-hoc SCM system around SVN. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- This seems good, but there are a couple problems:
- 1. I don't know what an SCM system is.
- 2. I don't know what SVN is.
- So... looks like you'll have to do this without me! Vir4030 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Improving Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Do you think that the Allegations about Hostage-taking section belongs where it is? It is very close to the beginning, and considering that they are allegations about a living person, I don't think that the current setup is appropriate. I mentioned this on the talk page but nobody seemed to notice. Do you think it would be more appropriate to put allegations near the bottom, perhaps in a specific section about controversies? This would be a good way to put the Antisemitism stuff and other controversial subjects under one umbrella section. The change may meet inexplicable resistance, based on my past experiences at the page, but do you think it is a good idea? The Behnam 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really have a solid opinion about this. I would warn about a specific section about controversies -- several editors have expressed opposition to this as a concept, and it seems to me to be a cop-out for a well-written article. If you have a specific change that you would like to make, I would advise you to be bold and make it as long as you honestly feel it improves the article. Just be sure to not remove any well-sourced information in the process. Vir4030 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because this is still being actively updated. The election is ongoing. IMHO wikipedia is a much better place for this. I don't even have a commons account. Vir4030 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- It can still be actively updated on Commons. Given that many different Wikipediae will have coverage of the election, updating the image on Commons means that everyone gets the updates immediately; I fail to see a compelling reason that Wikipedia is "a much better place". Creating a Commons account is hardly the hardest thing in the world to do. Stannered (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image is based on data in the Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008 page, also hosted on Wikipedia. It was created for this page so that the data could be represented in a visual state graph. It is updated along with the data that's on this page. I do not believe it makes sense to put it in another area. There's no reason why any other Wikipediae couldn't just use the copy that's on Wikipedia until the primary is over and the map is finalized. Vir4030 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)