Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Is this original research?[edit]

Just asking for opinions. The Nanoscope page seems to me to be original research, but I'm not sure. There is some speculation in the literature that such a device (though not with that name) might be possible someday. But it's not now, and may never be. I'm considering nominating the article as an AfD. eaolson 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As far Google can tell, Nanoscope is a brand of Atomic force microscope. The concept described in this article, with particle scattering rather than a cantilever system, sounds more like a Neutron microscope. While I can see that it'd be possible to make an "atomic" version rather than just using neutrons, I can't really see the point given the decreased resolution. An AFD couldn't hurt, at worst it'd get a community consensus for the article. GeeJo (t)(c) • 16:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Some 'brand-naming' seems to be involved here. The page is already a disambigulation, and certainly the second entry is correct (having just undergone the dubious pleasures of my first Colonoscopy, I can assure you first hand; but was interesting to see my insides on TV!). Only the second line in Nanoscope (sans wikilinks— suggesting the need for articles) is worded dubiously to my technical background. I've tagged it with an expert template and made a talk notation as well as fixing it up some as best I could: Talk:Nanoscope#Why_Asserting_.7BExpert.7D_Template. In sum, more brand naming than inaccurate. Is appropo on an disambig page. The language changes (constantly)!
Best regards // FrankB 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the article I was asking the question about has now moved to atomic nanoscope.

Still not OR -- cutting edge though. Note in the second referenced link there is a 'text book' citing the other book. Perhaps someone with some German skills can verify, but the first cite ultimately leads to: a publisher, who is presumably vetting the page. Hence us citing them is not OR. // FrankB 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Harrington syndrome[edit]

Does anyone know if the Harrington syndrome exists? It appears in the movie 'Darkness' but can't find anything about it. Servien 18:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought maybe you just misspelled it. I did some searching and I'm fairly convinced it was invented for the purpose of the movie. Deco 10:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Dang! I thought it described those of us who've been blessed by reading the Honor Harrington SF series! :-) // FrankB 21:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox WS[edit]

Let me start off by saying I began this template in order to help synchronize various writing system articles, and the template turned out to be much more of a chore than I anticipated. I initially copied it from Template:Infobox Language, thinking I could tweak it, but now I realize that the esoteric code is quite overwhelming to the noobesque computer geek such as myself. I need some help with it. I, as well as other members from Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems have outlined parameters on its talkpage and now these plans need to be implemented. Would any wikipedian experienced with esoteric code be willing to help me edit this template?-- The ikiroid  02:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Try some of the contributors over at: Wikipedia:Requested_templates, or just list it there with the problem like I did in that example. I'b best not brag up any particular contributor, but most anyone working over there can probably help. FrankB 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

wiki look changed to text only[edit]

for years when I opened wikipedia, it had blue graphic buttons. recently it has gone to all text and I do not think I selected any changes. How do I get back to the default? I'm using netscape 7.1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 01:46, 31 May 2006 (talkcontribs) Septagram.

First, try "hard-refreshing": hold down Shift and click Refresh/Reload. If that doesn't solve the problem, go to Special:Preferences (that's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences) and make sure your skin is set to Monobook or some other appropriate skin. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


What should this say?[edit]

I am User:Libertyernie. I forgot my password and I didn't put an e-mail address. Rather than yelling at myself, is there some way I can get to clear that account or its userpage at least and make a new account? (i.e. add a number at the end) P.S. I am on H*R Wiki too wunder the same username (different password.) 68.190.163.188 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You should probably try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'm not sure what the policy on this is, exactly, but the devs there should be able to help. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add an Edit Summary[edit]

How do I add an edit summary to an edit I already applied please? Thanks in advance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack Blueberry (talkcontribs) 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it can't be done, though I often wish it could myself. What you can do, however, is make a null edit--add some invisible whitespace or something else that doesn't really alter the article, and then provide an edit summary to the extent of "null edit -- last edit summary should have been..." AmiDaniel (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Kevorkian Trial[edit]

Someone please post transcripts of the Kevorkian trial post haste. -jeanlucpicard

That is not something that we would have in an encyclopedia. Jack Kevorkian includes a link to the transcript of the judge's sentencing statement. Rmhermen 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be something for wikisource though. --Bachrach44 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

B.J. Averell[edit]

Hi. I've noticed that an anonymous user has edited the article on B.J. Averell. His IP address is from Santa Monica, and the nature of the edits leads me to believe that he is B.J. Averell himself. I don't know if there's some sort of welcome wagon or procedure for this, but he's taken out some of the more disparaging yet well-documented information. When I tried to talk to a user I believed to be Tyler MacNiven, his teammate on The Amazing Race 9, I used the wrong welcome template, and I just don't think it turned out as well as I'd hoped. So, if anyone more confident or experienced about dealing with this sort of thing could have a try, I'd very much appreciate it. They both seem like the sort of people who would make fine contributors. --Maxamegalon2000 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he has registered as User:Hexadisc. --Maxamegalon2000 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a template. You may have to actually use your own words.  ;) Just be sure to be friendly and supportive, as well as firm. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Be sure to refer them to Wikipedia:Autobiography as well. - BT 15:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Use {{subst:Welcome-m|relevant message}} when you want to customize the welcome messageCaptainj 22:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner[edit]

A user has recently made substantial edits to Blade Runner; a featured article, I have reverted them all but I'd like feedback if any specific edits should be kept. - RoyBoy 800 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


SAP MINI installation[edit]

Help required for the installation of SAP WEB AS I have not been able to locate SAPEXEDB.SAR file on any of the installation CDs . Please post your comment as soon as possible or send it @ worku.addis-at-gmail.com Thanks Addis

Well I'm sorry to hear that, but this isn't really the place to be asking for technical support. See if there are other forums on the internet which are more fitting for this type of problem. --Bachrach44 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
He really meant to be helpful and give you the link Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical), but was rushed, or something.
I've altered the '@' to defeat webcrawling spiders and such; no reason to feed the leechlike spammers out there! // FrankB 15:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Um, isn't Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) for help about MediaWiki software? Addis is asking about SAP software. Of course, SAP software does everything so I wouldn't be surprised if it also had modules for creating MediaWiki encyclopedias.  ;^)
--Richard 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, SAP software is supposed to be able to do everything, but it's notoriously hard to use because it's all written in German by crazy German programmers, while nearly all software programs out there are written in English-based programming languages. --Coolcaesar 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Help!!!!! Newby here!!!![edit]

I need an idiot proof or simple method to upload, format information and place in the correct categories. I am a photographer and I want to contribute!!! Can anyone help? I uploaded the following... that is about as far as I can get.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crocodylus_acutus_mexico.jpg Thanks! --tomascastelazo 22:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The licensing template automatically categorized it for you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have the elaborate categorization system found on the commons:. I believe this type of image could be uploaded to the Commons, which only accepts free images.--Max Talk (add) 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Sandbox reset button[edit]

How do you put a reset button on your sandbox? Thanks.  Jack Blueberry (t)(c) •  22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolved.  Jack Blueberry (t)(c) •  02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I am new to the computer and all the in's and out's of using it. I was enchanted that there was such a thing as wikipedia available. Some people have been kind and helpful. Others are arrogant and rude. Everybody on the planet has different gifts. Nobody will learn if they don't try. Some people that use this site should be more openminded about helping others learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.235 (talkcontribs)

I've had a quick look at your talk page and you seem to be editing from a shared IP address. This basically means that other peoples' contributions are mixed in with yours and you are getting messages intended for them. If you get yourself an account this won't happen and hopefully you'll find people are friendlier to you as they won't be confused by other peoples' contributions. The other benefits of an account are shown here. Hope this helps RicDod 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Let this be a reminder: always qualify statements on an anon talk page with "if you're the person who did X"... Deco 04:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Topics[edit]

I've been editing on Wikipedia for about 6 months now.

I have been trying to take a good topic (that I have no invested interest in) and document something on Wikipedia that I think will make a positive contribution to the community.

I have run into problems several times where my work just gets deleted. I can't revert it (that I know of) and I'm wondering what I should do.

In this case I decided that I would expand the biography of my town Babylon (town), New York by adding a biography of the town Supervisor Steve Bellone.

I'm not even a big fan of the guy -- I just thought it would make the whole experience about reading about the town better.

So I spent about 2 hours doing a bio and getting references from other places to use.

Then someone deletes it.

That really is discouraging.

What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimerb (talkcontribs)

The deletion was posted and discussed according to process: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Bellone. If you believe this was in error, or have additional information that may refute the judgment of the deletion nominator and/or voters, please post a request on Wikipedia:Deletion review for reconsideration. Postdlf 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some advice about what kinds of articles should and should not be included is at Wikipedia:Your first article. When deciding to create an article the best things to keep in mind are Wikipedia:Verifiability (anyone else should be able to verify the information in your article, without too much difficulty), and Wikipedia:No original research (don't present information of your own creation, even if it's demonstrably true!). Articles about individual people are usually deleted if the person does not satisfy one or more of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) (although this is not policy). If you're willing to research something, there are thousands of articles that have been requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or you might find something at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year that interests you. I'm really sorry your article was deleted. We need writers. Please stay and try a different topic. If you'd like to bounce an idea off someone, feel free to contact me on my talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If you would like to have the text of your article, you can ask an admin to move the text to a user subpage.--Max Talk (add) 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was actually deleted through the AfD process, meaning it wasn't quite like "someone just deleted it one day." I'll gladly userfy it for you though. Leave a message on my talk page if you would like me to restore the text of the article for you. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My article was deleted...[edit]

Hello all,

I am brand new here and I posted a stub. It was deleted less than 8 hours. I can understand if I "got it wrong" in some way and someone assisted with edits or format cleanup but...??? I will place here the content of the stub. Please tell me what I am doing wrong and also tell me if there is a way for a general user to identify which Admin is deleting. I posted it twice and it was deleted twice.

Thank you for any assistance you may provide,

PSKelligan

The deleting admin cited the rule CSD A7, which states "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". But A7 does not say "non-notable". In my opinion your article does assert the importance of its subject and it should have not been speedy deleted (and instead deleted by some other means due to non-notability). Deco 14:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response.Iwill look further into the rule cited. I wish to have my article remain and be expanded by others as well as myself. What should I do. Reposting or some other meathod? PSKelligan 14:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It was deleted twice, first by SushiGeek as a WP:CSD#A7 (article not asserting the notability of the subject), then by Deltabeignet as a WP:CSD#G4 (repost of a previously deleted article). The first deletion is a bit dubious, because "published author" is an assertion of notability. I will restore your article and notify the deleting admin. Kusma (討論) 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Howard O. Pittman is an American Baptist minister, itinerate preacher and author of several Christian books. He lives in Foxworth, Mississippi and travels the world with his wife Joyce Pittman preaching and teaching on the subject of Spiritual warfare. As outlined in his book "Placebo", Rev. Pittman, on August 3rd, 1979, had a Near Death Experience while suffering a massive internal hemorage and claims that he was granted an audience with God the Father, was shown many astonishing things and was sent back here to tell all who would listen the amazing things he was shown.

More to follow soon...

Books by Howard Pittman

  • Placebo (1980)
  • Demons: An Eyewitness Account
  • The Covert War
  • The Day Star
  • The Mystry Demon
  • The Curse of the Lord
  • The Secret Agent
  • Phoebes Story


Vast numbers of edits by Marudubshinki making RC patrol impossible[edit]

Marudubshinki (talk · contribs) is running some program that is adding thousands of redirects, so that every item in Wikipedia with the state name spelled out gets a redirect using the state abbreviation. (For example, Hammond High School (Columbia, MD) redirects to Hammond High School (Columbia, Maryland)). Regardless of whether this is a good idea, it's choking the new articles list and making RC patrol impossible. Now what? --John Nagle 03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He's violating WP:BOT in a big way. I've dropped a note on his talk page; I expect he'll respond, but in case he doesn't, he can be blocked as an unauthorized bot. You can bring this up at WP:AN next time, or otherwise get the attention of an admin. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's choking new pages because it's broken. I'll unicodify them as fast as I can, which will get them off newpages, but I won't be able to take all of them off quickly. --Rory096 05:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, not being unicodified is worse than I thought, I can't fix this at all with AWB. --Rory096 05:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Raul654 has blocked him for an hour. Hopefully Maru will return before it expires so this can be sorted out. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


issue at CfD[edit]

I'm trying to post Category:Wikipedia Sock Puppet Master to CfD. I got through the first step OK, but can't seem to get it to post at the CfD mainpage. I got it to post at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 5, twice! Weird. --Kchase02 (T) 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: somebody seems to have handled it. Thanks! --Kchase02 (T) 04:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help me with CSS?[edit]

I have been experimenting with using CSS to change the displayed title at the top of the page. However, lacking extensive knowledge of CSS and Wikipedia's styles, I have not been able to succeed. The space between the header and the subheader are to great, if the size or background color is changed is doesn't work, and their are [edit] buttons at the edge. Can someone help fix this?. My idea is that we could make this into a "change title" template, which could be used in articles such as iPod and C#.--Max Talk (add) 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

CSS and javascript hacks are generally frowned upon because they function inconsistently in different browsers. Check out Template talk:lowercase for previous attempts and note that there's pretty much a standing consensus against using them, so don't bother. Night Gyr 02:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about personal css files? For example User:Schwarzm/monobook.css? If you are then Night Gyr's comment doesn't apply. However very few people have the knowledge to help you, I unfortunately can not. Prodego talk 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
{{title}} is an attempt to do what you're talking about, I think, but read the talk page. It doesn't work in all skins and probably never will. Night Gyr 02:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Resident Advisor question[edit]

I'm not sure of a great place to ask this question. None of the talk pages for the relevant articles even exist. So it's not like anyone would notice if I tried to leave a message there.

Anyway ... here goes ...

In college, there is a student employee for each floor of a residence hall called a Resident assistant or Resident advisor. The former term is probably more prevalent, though not overwhelmingly so ... maybe 60/40 if I had to guess. The Wikipedia article on the subject is located at Resident assistant, as it should be - no problem there.

But Resident Advisor, rather than being a redirect to Resident assistant, is an article about an online music magazine. I googled the term and with the exception of the hit from the magazine's website itself, just about every hit for "Resident advisor" was in reference to resident assistants, not to the music company. I checked alexa and the website ranks around 13,000 and it has a large forum, so I don't question that the company is notable enough for an article.

The only non-trivial internal link to Resident Advisor was one that really wanted Resident assistant. (I have corrected it.)

So my question is this: what would be the proper naming convention for these articles?

I would bring this to the relevant talk pages, but they are all red links, so it's unlikely anyone would notice.

BigDT 06:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


I'd go for choice A - because it involves making the fewest number of people click again to get to the page they want. --Cherry blossom tree 09:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


actually choice B would result in less click agains, which is what I would support. I would also suggest then nominating the new for an AfD, as I doubt it is notable. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 09:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Latin America Portal[edit]

I seem to have screwed the formatting up in my attempt to add a contributions section. I would be very grateful if someone fixed it. The subportals section is supposed to go across the bottom of the portal, and the contributions section isn't supposed to bulge out of its box. Estrellador* 16:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify? The subportals section does go across the bottom of the portal, although there's an unsightly gap there, and I'm not sure what you mean by "contributions section" (I see nothing outside its box). I checked the page at the time of your post here, in both Firefox and IE, and this is true for then too. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry; gadfium has fixed it for me. I worked out how to fix the contributions section by myself before anyone answered - I think that edit must have only been to the subpage. Thanks anyway. Estrellador* 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Need help with moving articles to Wikisource[edit]

So, here's the scoop...

There are two new articles The Republic of Macedonia - The Constitution and Macedonia - The Constitution. Both of these contain the text of the Macedonian Constitution and nothing else. As such, they should be merged and the merged copy should be moved to WikiSource via transwiki.

Did I get that right?

If so, how do I do this? Should I tage the articles as Proposed Delete (prod) or Articles for Deletion (AfD)?

How do you transwiki something anyway?

--Richard 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are free to upload these texts to Wikisource yourself (though beware of copyright, it would be best if you could get a copy yourself). PROD them, and if someone objects move them overt ot AfD. Captainj 23:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Copyright isn't a problem. See WP:PD#_note-1. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional characters by political views[edit]

Recently, some people have added sections titled "Characters who are presumably conservative" and "Characters who are presumably liberal" to the List of fictional United States Republicans and List of fictional United States Democrats. I don't think these sections are entirely appropriate. First, I'm sure there is controversy about whether or not "conservative" and "Republican" can be considered synonyms, and about whether or not "liberal" and "Democrat" can be considered synonyms. Thus it doesn't make sense to add a list of liberals or conservatives in a greater list of Democrats and Republicans. Second, some entries are justified with explanations like "has a number of conservative views" or "supports liberal ideas like gay marriage and is opposed to the Patriot Act." It seems like that in order to be included in a list of liberals or conservatives in a Wikipedia article, one should identify with the terms "liberal" or "conservative". I don't think it is enough to simply support some political issues that most people label "liberal" or "conservative". What I'd like to know is what the other editors think about the appropriateness of those sections, and if anyone has any ideas about how they should be reorganized. What I'd think about doing is having something like list of fictional characters by position on political issues and then dividing it into sections like "fictional characters in support of gay marriage", "fictional characters in support of the Patriot Act", "fictional characters in support of the war with Iraq", etc., and to have complimentary sections for fictional characters in opposition to these issues. Then I'd want to move the fictional conservatives/liberals from the List of fictional Democrats/Republicans to list of fictional characters by position on political issues. Q0 00:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I should also say that I did leave a message on Talk:List of fictional United States Democrats but didn't get a response. Q0 00:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Remove them as original research Captainj 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say the Archy Bunker line is your guide, not WP:OR; some things need be taken commonsensically, and most of these should have some critical reviews which can be cited as third party sources.
So add a {fact} template to any line you dispute. Be prepared to spend a lot of time defending and justifying these categorizations yourself. Seems like a good way to wander into an Flamewar of sorts.
But if you feel strong about it, the article talk is the place to discuss it. Try parsing the history file, and contacting the party that posted the offending line, and invite the postee to see your demurral on your talk. Involve half a dozen or so in the matter, then work out a new strategy. This is freedom hall, work on what you will, but be prepared to justify your stances. Since the characters are Fictional, see who has contributed significant material to the subject article's, and invite them into the debate as well.
Bear in mind that fictional characters will from time to time flip-flop based on the author's needs to generate 'tension' and further overall plot. Your and my interpretations are moot—the WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV guidelines are clear on that.
Your point on equating 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' with party affiliation is well taken, but bear in mind these also mean other things internationally as well. So you're wandering into a mine field which is likely to be fairly educational and mind expanding... assuming you have the time.
IF you want the best visibility, post a notice of the discussion on the Community Portal BB... that should garner some other editors. Best wishes! // FrankB 16:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If a novel says "Bob was a lifelong Democrat", including Bob in a list of fictional Democrats does not constitute original research (the exact line of the novel should be cited as a reference). If it's not explicitly said that he is, that's dubious. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Now what I'd like to know is if it would be appropriate to start an article called list of fictional characters by position on political issue and have a section of fictional characters supportive of some issue (such as gay marriage, the war in Iraq, etc.) and then list fictional characters who have explicitly expressed support for the issue, and then to have another section of fictional characters who have explicitly expressed opposition to the issue. Q0 11:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with such a list. However, it may well be listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and deleted as "listcruft", so be aware that you're risking your effort in constructing such a list. If you do make one, I suggest you add specific references for each asserted character's view. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity mugshots[edit]

For any not aware, Mugshots taken in the United States are considered public domain. As such, a fair number of them have been uploaded to both Wikipedia and Commons. However, there's been a (quite understandable) resistance to posting mug shots in articles about celebrities, especially when they replace Fair Use images (typically screenshots from films) as the only image in the article. While there are a few cases where the mugshots are quite high quality (Jeff Timmons' springs to mind) and it's fairly obvious that the mugshot should be kept, or the converse case where the shots are out of date (Ozzy Osbourne) or very low quality (Frank Sinatra) and a fair use image would obviously be a better choice, there's a grey area where we have relatively high quality shots that aren't very flattering to the subject (Brad Renfro or Macauley Culkin). The question is, is there a valid case for replacing images in the latter category (free but unflattering) with fair use images from television or film appearances (flattering but unfree)? Does adding a mugshot, when it's the only free use image of the subject available, constitute POV pushing? Any opinions? GeeJo (t)(c) • 10:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Free or GDFL images should always be used instead of "fair use" images. The Commons has actually banned fair use images, and there is a discussion here about getting rid of it. The problem is that they stop people re-using the image as it is not free and only the context matters (an image of Brad Pitt in an article about Angelina Jolie, may not be fair use). It also makes it harder to use the image (and possibly the article) outside Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainj (talkcontribs) 17:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless the image is dramatically worse, always go with the free image. I'd say the exceptions from the ones you've listed (not counting Frank Sinatra, since that won't load for me) would be Macauley Culkin, since his mugshot really doesn't present a good image of what he looks like, and Ozzy Osbourne, because the picture is so massively outdated (although it could be included too, preferably cropped so that it looks more like a normal photo). The others seem high-quality enough for use in articles, and therefore should be preferred. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not confident that mugshots are public domain. Are they works of the federal government, or the state and local government? As far as I know that provision only applies to works of the federal government produced by federal employees as part of their job. Do not assume otherwise without consulting someone who can answer this. Deco 04:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Not generally, no, but the exemption being used is somewhat different. As the template says, "works such as official legal documents and public records created by state and local government agencies in the United States are generally not eligible for copyright for reasons of public policy". See WP:PD#_note-1. However, the phrasing is totally off, and the applicability of the ruling is therefore entirely questionable. As the link states, the precise exemption is "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." Mugshots are not edicts of government.

I'll bring it up at commons:Template:Mugshot. Hopefully I'll remember to check back for updates. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Joe Wehinger - a legend in his own mind?[edit]

Jw1902 (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple articles to promote "Joe Wehinger" as a film director. As far as I can verify, the actual output of this director is one short film. But Wikipedia now has these articles about him:

--John Nagle 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are skeletal entries in IMDB for some of these films. Some have hits in Google. But most of those derive from either IMDB or Wikipedia. They're not showing up in searches at the Hollywood Reporter, even though some of the films claim to have famous actors in them. Is this guy for real, or what? --John Nagle 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I would put them all up for deletion to get a consensus on whether this guy is notable enough. EdGl (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I would put just Escape (2008) and The American Standards up for deletion (maybe even PROD). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If you think Last Breath and/or Joe Wehinger are non-notable, you could put them up too. Deco 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Tense[edit]

I looked at Wikipedia:style, but it didn't appear to say. When writing about something whattense should one use? Especially for dead people and for live people? -- SGBailey 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The past tense should be used when referring to past events. When referring to future events, the future tense should be used. When referring to the present, you probably want to use the present tense. So "Bob is a famous rock-collector from Arkansas . . ." if he's still alive, otherwise "Bob was . . .". Of course, your sentence structure may require a slightly nonintuitive tense, depending on the rules of grammar: for instance, you'd say "Bobland is the name of an ancient amusement park uncovered in the ruins of Pompeii", even though it doesn't exist anymore—Bobland is still the name of the amusement park, just the amusement park is destroyed.

Did you have any specific examples in mind? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

William Timym is dead and it reads "He is this & that" which seems wrongs. Also the various current events pages don't seem to have a concessus on tense - especially when they get archived and are old events. -- SGBailey 13:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
At risk of stating the obvious (oh, and hi, Steve, btw!) - if you find a page where the tense is wrong, for example William Timym as you've just cited - correct it! That's what Wikipedia's for! I agree with Simetrical's assessment of how tenses should be being used, and do try to correct mistakes when I come across them. As far as the current events pages go it's probably inevitable that they'd be in a state of flux; hopefully as they stabilise people will notice and correct grammatical inconsistencies. --JennyRad 16:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I will edit such artciles when I understand the requirements. Thus dead Mr Timym gets to become "He did this and that, He was this and that." I still wish to understand what tense Current events and archived current events are meant to be written in. (oh, and hi, Jenny - Barmouth?) -- SGBailey 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The current events page here and similar things like timelines always use present tense, specifying the date and then saying what happened on that date as though the date were in the present. Common practice in English. -- Centrx 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Does that apply to old events? EG do/should archived current events remain in the present tense - EG January 2005. If that is present tense then what about ancient events (eg 1066)? -- SGBailey 09:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This applies to any event organized in a timeline-like format (there may be some linguistic term for this, I don't know it). So, for example,
1066 — William the Conqueror invades England.
However, if this is organized in prose, we have,
On that fateful day in 1066, William the Conqueror invaded England.
The same applies for current events and year/month pages, where each event is organized under a header for that day, as is seen in January 2005. Even if this weren't standard and reasonable English practice, it would be a waste of time to change the tenses in current events pages every time a day passes. This is similar to the tense one might assume when telling a story, "So, there I am, and he looks at me and says...". -- Centrx 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandal or new user?[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure where to post my concern or complaint. It has to do with an editor who continues to add nonsense and add upload copyrighted images without a fair use rationale. I don't know if this person is a sneaky vandal or a clueless new user. I tried to assume that his edits are in good faith, but his actions are causing some edit conflits.

The user I am concerned about is user:Mrsanitazier. I think he might be a sockpuppet of user:Mrknowitman.

Mrknowitman and Mrsanitazier added unverified nonsense to articles related to The Lion King and deleted useful text. I have politely warned both editors. Both editors edited the same articles. I have even politely asked Mrsanitazier to explain his edits and removals, but he ignores my comments and the warnings. They don't type in an edit summary.

Some of the other editors are starting to be weary of his edits. I'm being nice and civil with him.

What should I do? I'll be happy to provide more information.

In the mean time, I'm going to read some other articles. --Starionwolf 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Update. It looks like Mrknowitman is creating new articles that contain information in existing articles. He is still not talking to me. I think he is ignoring my polite requests to stop. --Starionwolf 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Dispute resolution trouble[edit]

I’m really not sure whether this belongs under Assistance or Miscellaneous, but: I am having a dispute with a stubborn editor who keeps adding nonsense to a few pages. Another user and I asked the editor to stop, and eventually put up an RfC, but there have been no comments; meanwhile, the editor continues to vandalize the page. What the heck can I do? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. He may respond if blocked for a day or two. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis an appropriate article?[edit]

There is an offshoot of the Brokeback Mountain article at Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis. I am of two minds about whether or not it is original research or not. On one hand, the very nature of the article being an "analysis" seems to suggest that it is OR. On the other hand, most of the claims are (sort of) cited. It just seems to me that the point of the article is to create a new synthesis of all these disjointed points about the movie.

The other problem is that most of the citations are basicaly of the form, "Some guy in an Internet forum said..." This is a pop culture article, so the standards for reliable sources are a bit relaxed, but an internet forum seems a bit ludicrously loose. Not to mention, the RS article suggests that bulletin boards are never acceptable secondary sources. I'm just not sure how stringent that is with respect to a pop culture item like this.

Suggestions and/or criticism would be appreciated. I don't want to just nom this article as an AfD without being sure, because I know that would ruffle some feathers. eaolson 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly (accurate, well-referenced parts of) many sections belong instead in the main article, like the directing, screenplay, music, etc. and lists of all the actors, music, and sound-editing crew do not belong on Wikipedia. I don't know about the accuracy or credibility of the analysis, but if some of it is original analysis by the author of the article, and some folks on Internet forums, then it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The state purpose of writing the article as mentioned in the Talk page, that there was "very limited information" about the film qua film in the main article, is not a reason for such extra analysis and random data points. Instead, that plot information should be integrated into the main article, and handled there. Otherwise, for being in the wrong place, it's not going to be read, errors will remain, etc. -- Centrx 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If someone wants to start an AfD on it, I'd be more than happy to vote "Merge and delete". --InShaneee 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ick, the idea of writing articles based on forum discussions...as if just anybody's opinion or comment is worth documenting on Wikipedia. Eventually we'll see articles such as The deletion of Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis ("Eaolson began the discussion by posting a question on the Village Pump, concerned that he would "ruffle some feathers"...") Postdlf 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget The deletion of The deletion of Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis: "Little did Postdlf realize when he made that fateful post on the Village Pump how inviting the red link would appear to vandals. It was only a matter of time before..." Deco 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Could the article "the lives of otherst" be removed?[edit]

I've created an article the lives of others but it already exist as Das Leben der Anderen. I don't know how remove it and make link from the english title to the german one. Moonray 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That article does not exist. Did you mistype it? You can create a redirect by editing the article and placing "#REDIRECT[[whatever]]" (without quotes) in the article body. Deco 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't need to have it deleted, simply replace the text as Deco said above. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Porto-Novo[edit]

I wrote the original version of Porto-Novo several years ago, and now User:Walter is questioning the copyright status of it, as having been copied from an on-line encyclopedia. I don't remember the sources that I used years ago, but I do know that I did not intentionally plagiarize anything. Since there's a concern that the versions are too similar, I have rewritten the article at User:Zoe/Porto-Novo, and would like to delete the current version and move the temp version in its place. Are there any problems with losing edits made by other editors in the interim since I wrote the original? User:Zoe|(talk) 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems in what sense? Copyright-wise, or loss of useful content, or what? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Copyright-wise. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not cut and paste your entire new article with "Edit summary" = "Complete rewrite" - then you keep the history. -- SGBailey 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea (and according to WP:COPYVIO) it is acceptable to keep the history even if it includes copyvios (unless the copyright owner makes a fuss). Technically if you delete user contributions (i.e. so they are no longer in history) but keep some or all of what they added, you are violating the GDFL, but then it seems to happen all the time and no-one makes a fuss about it. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 16:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. User:Xed has copied in the article from my User space, so I think everything is fine, then. Thanks for the input. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the appropriate Image copyright tag[edit]

Dear all, I am in negotiation with an organisation to try and get some of their photos released to put them on Wikipedia.

I would like to know exactly which copyright tag(s) is appropriate for me to place on the image page when I upload them. Here are the specifics:

  • The photos are all quite recent
  • It is an Australian educational institution, in Australian legal juristiction
  • They will probably wish to retain as many rights as possible
  • I will be uploading the pictures for them (and as such I cannot use the "self made" tags)

What range of tags should I show the organisation when I go to talk to them? Cheers, Witty lama 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} is a fairly nice free license for images, and has the virtue of coming with a concise summary (the "commons deed"). It's the most restrictive CC license accepted on Wikipedia. The other alternative is the {{GFDL}}, which is arguably more restrictive, but also more complex and not really intended for images. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. What is the difference when GDFL and Cc-by-sa-2.5 are used at the same time? Witty lama 03:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
When they're used at the same time then people can choose to use either one or the other if they come to reuse the picture. The GFDL is almost useless for allowing people to reuse images on their own, since whenever the image is reproduced it has to be done with about 4 pages of text. --Cherry blossom tree 10:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't providing a link to said four pages of text online be sufficient? - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with page history of Talk:DVD[edit]

In the course of organizing Talk:DVD so that it is in chronological order, has unsigned comments signed, etc.—this one was especially butchered—I noticed problems with the page history: There are comments in the page that are not registered as having been added in the page history (See edit 07:43, 22 June 2005 Rhobite where the edit summary is "Reverted edits by LiuPeter to last version by Lifeisunfair", yet there are no edits by Lifeisunfair in the page history, despite there being a comment from that user in the Talk page), and in traversing the page history by clicking on the "Newer revision" at this edit, I am skipped to, not the next edit, but one further along. (Please leave me a message on my Talk page) Note that by the time someone reads this I may not be done fixing the Talk page. -- Centrx 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It turns out this user's username was changed at some point, so the comments and the edit summaries have the old name, but the other problem remains (possibly related to how old the changes are). -- Centrx 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What messages aren't in the history? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought there were missing messages because there were comments from a certain user, and vandalism-reverting edit summaries referencing edits from that user when there were, in fact, no edits listed by that username in the page history. However, this person's username was changed, so that the edits in the page history were under the new name, but the comments in the page and in the edit summaries were in the old name. So, there is no error here.
The second error was this: On http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DVD&oldid=247455 , click on "Newer revision" and it skips ahead to not the next revision, but several revisions ahead. This is only minor in the scheme of things, but it could indicate a general problem.-- Centrx 01:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


On the naming of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[edit]

Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming has a long discussion over whether or not Saddam Hussein should be referred to as Saddam or Hussein (or al-Tikriti). Based on that precedent, shouldn't we be referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as "Abu Musab"? (I have also listed this at the Reference Desk). User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) suggests it should be the most common appellation. Don't commentator's usually refer to him simply as "al-Zarqawi"? Obviously that would be too short for an article title. --Kchase02 T 07:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That was not allowed on the Saddam Hussein article. He is most commonly referred to as Hussein, but we are not allowed to call him that. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Sound sample box template[edit]

Could somebody fix the placement of this template, which I put on my Prezioso page? I'm not sure how to get it looking decent. Thanks. --Jakes18 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to the right (variation 2 rather than variation 1). Is this better? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template for biography[edit]

I am considering expanding a biographical stub, and was wondering if there is such a thing as a Wikipedia biography template. I would particularly like to see a baseline standard on what should and shouldn't be included in a biography. IN would be: birth and death dates, main occupation, place of birth, best known for, books/works of music/etc. created, geographical associations, family relationships, education, key or formative events in life, etc. OUT would be: Lengthy discussion of concepts created by person (separate subject), opinion of writer about person or his/her work and life, and ?

It appears that many categories are already covered by templates, and this to my eye gives coherence and useability to the encyclopedia: cities, flowers, animals, chemical elements, etc.

I see the difficulty and need for nuanced treatment so that the biography template does not become a straitjacket. However, I believe we are capable? So, is there one? If not, any interest in creating and using it? NuclearWinner 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an existing Template:Infobox Biography, which at least some editors dislike (it's been nominated for deletion multiple times). You might bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a template for an infobox, not a template for an article. -- Centrx 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I assumed the question was about an infobox. There's also an article template (template:Biography) mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography if that's what the question is really about. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Helping updating image[edit]

Hello, I have had some trouble fixing this image and I was wondering if some else with better photoshop or GIMP skills can fix it, I just need it bigger (as in typical flag image size), for it to be sharp and clear, and it to be a .svg file. Merci! to the person who helps me. -- Je suis t\c 02:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is one fancy city flag. I don't think the image even contains enough detail to produce an SVG. It originally comes from a page of NAVA, a non-profit flag organization. I'd ask either NAVA or the city for a larger image, ideally already in a vector format. Deco 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have the graphic arts skills if you want to work with me on this. See me on my talk. John Reid 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

About Putting Backgrounds on a Page[edit]

Hello. I was told that the Village Pump was the place to ask this question, so I will ask it. Is it possible to have an image behind text, and still be able to change the text. Like a picture of something, then text in front of it. Can you do this in Wikipedia (more exactly MediaWiki)? --Green-Dragon 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello? --Green-Dragon 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, no. There is a standard for Wikipedia article appearance, and it doesn't include backgrounds. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Technically, you can, using CSS. You generally shouldn't use such hacks without a very good reason, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not about Wikipedia, it is actually about D&D Wiki, and my user page. Anyway, so it is possible with CSS....? --Green-Dragon 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. See Template:Click for an example. Basically, the trick is to use the CSS position property to place the image and the text on top of each other. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Click is silly and doesn't work in all browsers. Don't use it. John Reid 18:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable[edit]

Hi, I am trying to understand the nature of 'No Original Research' and 'Verifiability' and all that. Is it possible to make the comment that, say for an article about a person claiming that people can live forever, that their website 'despite claiming extensively that people can live forever, does not make an attempt to explain how this is possible.' In part, I am wondering how much we as editers are allowed to interpret websites - by saying what people don't discuss. My dispute is that a fellow editor claims that I can't write what a website doesn't include, because that fails either the 'No Original Research' or 'Verifiability' or 'Reliable Sources' rules. It feels like my hands are tied. I am slightly confused. To elaborate, if I were doing an article about the google webpage, would I basically be only able to write what other people have said about the website as opposed to doing any actual analysis of the site itself(with the website itself as the reference). Help! MaxMangel 08:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of a fuzzy line. If something is verifiable, you can generally include it. So if a website doesn't include some specific info, and you think it would be of interest to readers to know that it doesn't include that info, you should mention it. Any reader could verify that it doesn't include this info, just by carefully looking over the entire site. (In the case of a website, of course, a footnote should make it clear when the info was retrieved, and possibly mention how the info's absence was determined as well.)

It's somewhat trickier if the website gives sciencey-sounding gibberish as an explanation. In that case, it might be best to just say something like "mainstream science has not yet accepted the existence of any technology that can prolong human life indefinitely" or something. Actually analyzing a (pseudo)scientific claim isn't something that's verifiable by the average reader. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


How to start a new page?[edit]

I wish to start two new pages one on Eugene Galien Laloue and the other on Edouard Cortes...2 French artists. They are not presently listed in wiki but I wish to give them a new page each. Can someone tell me how to set up a new page and then I can gradually build it up. thanks Peter morrell 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipediafranl | talk00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Between stub and good/featured article.[edit]

We currently identify very short articles as stubs, and articles on the higher end as good or featued. However, what about articles in between?

What would you call articles of the following standards:

1. The article is about 3-6 paragraphs (up to 1 page long). It provides everything a stub should have - a simple definition of the article subject, etc. However, it also summarizes some of the more sailent or important information about the article subject. It does not go into detail about the important points, though. The article would be useful to someone with brief familiarity on the subject. For example, Michelangelo virus.

2. The article is about 2-5 pages long. Each of the important aspects of the article subject has its own section, and each section has sufficient, but not thorough, coverage. Some not-so-key sections may be pretty brief. The article is reasonably well written. There may be several references, images, etc. The article does not contain egregious violations of policy, e.g. NPOV. It would be useful to those with reasonable familiarity with the subject. For example, Google Groups (written by me).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion and {{Sectionstub}} for sections that are stubbed. Lots of other things at Wikipedia:Cleanup. -- Centrx 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
See also {{Grading scheme}}, which is used by a number of WikiProjects to classify articles. GeeJo (t)(c) • 16:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Groups of articles needing wikification[edit]

I found that all the pages by this user need formatting, and I'm not sure if they violate any policies. Can any of the heavy editors take a look and decide the right tags to put up? Walt 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Spellchecking/Proofreading[edit]

Every native speaker of the english language can help supporting wikimetrics. To extend my questionaire about "Wikis in Unternehmen" (wikis in enterprises) to an international level, I like to publish the survey and some more infos in english language tomorrow. The problem: my english isn't the best :-). So it would be absolutly great, if you will be able to spend some minutes in spellchecking/proofreading this - thanks a lot! --Avatar-en 00:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, it's online now. Hopefully not too many errors survived. --Avatar-en 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Identical images, both used in en:[edit]

There are two images in commons, Image:Big cookie.jpg and Image:Choco chip cookie.jpg. Big cookie.jpg is only used in en:. If you could replace the image, it can be deleted on commons. Eventually it's a bot job. (Excuse my unpracticed english). --Lyzzy 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the two templates that use it. You could ask for someone to get their bot to remove the rest on WP:BOTREQ. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, no use left. --Lyzzy 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Help! Is this still disambiguation?[edit]

Hi all. I'm the creator of the Ayesha disambiguation page. However, it's now been through lots of edits, and there's starting to be more information posted there. What should I do? Should I leave it? Remove the disambiguation boilerplate and leave it? Keep the disambiguation boilerplate and move the extra info to more appropriate articles?

I'm leaning towards just removing the disambiguation boilerplate, but I'd like a couple of fresh eyses to look at this page and offer suggestions. You can drop ideas on my talk page -> Thanks! -- Markspace 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Still disambig, I think. Put the name description at the top, drop the census info (irrelevant), then have the list of uses within wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks 23:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've conducted a revision of Ayesha that brings it closer in line with WP:MOSDAB than it was previously. One piece of content was removed, that related to the increase in popularity of the name owing to its use in the works of H. Rider Haggard; this was removed for two reasons: a) it wasn't critically important for the navigation function of the page (dab pages are navigational aids), but I often treat such information as optional and not obligately removable, but more important b) it's an unsubstantiated piece of information that I could not included in either the author's article or She (novel) or Ayesha (novel). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. Mostly they are very good. One I'm not sure of is to add a link for Ayesha (novel). This book doesn't seem quite important enough to warrant a page of it's own, and I think redirecting to H._Rider_Haggard's main page would be better. More on your talk page in a bit... -- Markspace 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't impose a notability standard on the contents of a dab page if an article actually exists as dab pages are article-oriented navigational aids; rather, take the article in question to WP:AFD or merge it into the author's article, then deal with the content of the dab page after the notability criterion has been imposed at the level of the target article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge of article[edit]

I think the articles Netscape and Netscape Communications Corporation should be merged. "Netscape" can refer both to the ex-corporation and the browsers it develops. In addition, both articles contain a wealth of information but need cleanup. After the merger and cleanup, I think it should be Peer Reviewed, and subsequently nominated for Good Article. I have placed the appropriate merger tags on both articles, but I am not sure where I should discuss mergers of articles. Hopefully you can look at the article and discuss the proposed merger and improvements here. Of course, if there's a better place, by all means, direct me there! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed your merger tags so that the proposal was to merge NCC into Netscape. It was largely arbitrary, just so both tags would point to discussion at Talk:Netscape, where I also inserted a comment. Discussion can proceed there.--Kchase02 T 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Trouble with Commons pix[edit]

Why is it that lately whenever I try to include a Commons image in an article it will not show up properly? Most recently I tried posting the coat of arms and locator map for Antrifttal, a municipality in Hesse, Germany, but all I see – even a day later; so I don't think it's a matter of waiting for the wiki to update itself – is empty frames with the little red X in the corner. When I click on these spaces, though, the Commons file comes up normally.

I have examined the "townbox" template used for German municipality articles, and nothing seems to be wrong with that. I have no idea what other people see when they look at the Antrifttal article. Perhaps it looks normal to them and the problem lies with my computer. Whatever it is, can someone look into it?

Thanks.

Kelisi 18:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It has now happened again with the Feldatal coat of arms, and even the locator map, which is an en:WP image, not a Commons image. This is getting serious! Images uploaded or included from the Commons longer ago than a few days all seem to work fine, but not these ones. Kelisi 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be your browser's cache not updating. Either pres Ctrl + F5 at the offending page, or clear the cahe/temporary internet files in the browser options. —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't viewed Antrifttal before today and I don't see the coat of arms or locator map, even after doing a full reload. Erwin85 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Try asking at WP:VPT. There have been some major problems with image thumbnails lately, from what I've seen. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with 3D graphics skills?[edit]

Speaker-cross-section.svg

Someone could make a 3D loudspeaker (or use one that already exists; probably a popular thing to model), and make a nice cutaway view from an angle and label all the parts shown in these two. — Omegatron 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


How can I use the #if template to detect that IE6 is being used?[edit]

My signature contains this Unicode character – ✤ – which renders correctly in Firefox, but IE6 renders it as a small box. Is there some way I can use the #if or #ifeq parser functions to detect that IE6 is being used to view my Wikitext? If so, I could substitute a different character when IE6 is the browser. Ideally, I'd like to write something like this:

{{#ifeq|{{UserBrowser}}|Internet Explorer|*|✤}}

Any help is appreciated. — franl | talk19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't. The parser functions are all done server side, and because of caching, any browser detection would have to be done client side, which would mean javascript except that users are generically prevented from adding javascript to pages. At present there is no method of doing what you suggest and I doubt there ever will be. Dragons flight 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Can someone with IE7 installed tell me if IE7 renders this character – ✤ – correctly? It should look like a simple cross with rounded tips. — franl | talk02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have IE7 Beta 2 and Firefox installed. I see a cross, exactly the same symbol rendered by Firefox. Deco 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at {{unicode}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, {{unicode}} is exactly the solution I need. Thanks. — franl | talk 16:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Handy tip for quickly viewing a preview when editting.[edit]

When I'm editting an article, I often need to scroll my browser (Firefox) to expose the Show preview button. This requires clicking outside of the edit box, scrolling, then positioning the mouse to click the button. I've discovered this handy trick for very quickly activating the Show preview button: Press TAB five times, then press SPACE once. Similarly, you can activate the Save page button by pressing TAB four times, then SPACE. — franl | talk00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Or you can use Alt-P. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have known that if I had bothered to read the tooltip that appears when I hover my mouse over the Show preview button. :-)franl | talk
Thanks, great tip! Erwin85 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Users with terrible spelling and grammar - vandalism[edit]

We have a problem over in Hubbert peak theory with Ruber chiken (talk · contribs). He's made 17 edits to Hubbert peak theory today. The spelling and grammar are terrible. On his talk page, he says "i am not a native english speacer and my spelling is a desaster.so i restrict my self in poluting the talk pages and very small corections." Most of his edits read like that. He claims his native language is French, and it would almost be better if he posted in French; French can be read and translated, by software if necessary.

What to do? He's trashing the article, and correcting his writing is difficult. I'm beginning to wonder if this is subtle vandalism. Opinions? --John Nagle 00:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at some of the user's other edits and find this difficult to call. Ignoring the spelling and grammar the edits do seem to be trying to improve the articles (which make me feel we should give him the benefit of the doubt). However, the spelling and grammar are awful. In addition if he is poor at English (as he claims) I would expect him to use shorter and simpler words then he actually uses (making be think he could be a vandal). However, overall I don't think this is vandalism. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I think his skills could be put to better use on the French Wikipedia. If he wants to contribute here then maybe we should suggest that he limits his contributions to talk pages for somebody else to incorporate into the article itself. --MarkS (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think this is vandalism. Look at this diff: [1]. Ruber chiken (talk · contribs) changed

In 1985, OPEC decided to link the allowed production limit for each OPEC country to that country's reported reserves.As a result several OPEC member countries , increased their reported reserve estimates, which had the effect of increasing their production quota.

to

The OPEC contries decided at 1985 too link their productions quotas on ther reservers.What then seemed wise,provoqued important increases of the estimates;in order to gaine hier production wrhgites.This permits also too obtain biger loans at lesser interest rates.

This has to stop. I've suggested to this editor that he edit the French wikipedia instead; we can get translations done if necessary. If the problem continues, then we know it's vandalism and the usual actions can be taken. --John Nagle 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith contributions are never vandalism. It seems reasonable to suppose that he thought he was making an improvement - note for example that the above edit added some info regarding interest rates. At the risk of offending them, I would just advise them to focus on addition of new info (which can then be cleaned up) or suggested corrections on the talk page, rather than attempting to restructure existing language written by native speakers. Deco 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ruber chiken (talk · contribs) is still at it, having edited about ten articles. We've convinced him to put {{cleanup}} tags in front of some of his edits. But expecting the RC patrollers to fix his spelling is asking too much. Soem of the edits verge on vandalism. His edit to European flag, But on the overall,this desing was badly receaved.It was compared to a bathroom toal. comes close.

Some other editors have tried reverting his edits, but he puts some of them back. See the history of Oil reserves. He's not engaging in revert wars, though; he stops before hitting the 3RR rule. However, once Ruber chiken (talk · contribs) has touched an article, the next editor must either clean up the mess or leave it in, making it non-revertable. This discourages other editors.

I still suspect subtle vandalism. He's doing damage to Wikipedia without violating policy. Please take a look at his edits and comment. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages and refer this page to the editors in question. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Partially as a result of this mess, Hubbert peak theory is now considered "unstable" and is no longer a "good article". That's a loss to Wikipedia. --John Nagle 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


PRIMA.TV[edit]

PRIMA.TV is a worldwide internet commercial TV channel focus on entertainment

So? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted edits[edit]

Hi. Is it possible to view/list a user's deleted edits? If so, how? --Zoz (t) 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible unless you're an administrator. You can ask over at WP:AN if you have a reason. It used to be possible to view deleted edits' authors and summaries, but then some clever person started putting libel and whatnot in edit summaries, so now they're completely unviewable for the time being. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thanks for the answer. --Zoz (t) 13:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:box upload help[edit]

Alright, here's the status: A new user, User:Punksk8erty, for his/her first edits, uploads a videogame case image over the image of a box (Image:Box.jpg) that is used for a userbox. I hit revert next to the actual box image and destroy everything, so I revert myself. She/he uploads the image again (even though the same image was up there).

Now not only do I need to revert the changes of this editor, but I need to move the image that has been uploaded to a new image (something that is not really possible, and of course I don't want to start an edit war).

Oh, and I'd need to edit the persons only contribution: adding that game case to its article.

Of course, 1. the Revert isn't working for me/I don't understand it, 2. I'm assuming bad faith and ticked off, so I'd only make the situation worse, and 3. I don't understand this users edits.

Help!!! Logical2u (Wikibreak) 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert didn't work for me either, but I was able to reupload the original "box" image. Image:Box.jpg. Hopefully they won't revert again. Nationalparks 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
And their image is now at: Image:Hunterbox.jpg, and placed in their article. Nationalparks 13:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Problem with user script[edit]

I am having a problem with a non-working user script for monobook.js. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#"Changes since I last edited" script doesn't work. Your assistance is appreciated. —Centrxtalk 02:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet[edit]

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet Creation Incident — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

so like help[edit]

i need to get some article to GA status so I feel like I've actually done something on this site

unfortunately I have no advanced knowledge about anything

what is something I could research and improve that doesn't require that much background knowledge

also another problem is my school library is total crap

if you don't believe me check it out

libwww.cabrillo.edu

how am I supposed to edit anything with a selection like that

Youd be surprised how much you can obtain with a lil googling. Many articles have items which can be at least partially sourced through the internet.--larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I note 393 results for "encyclopedia" in that catalogue. Strikes me there ought to be some reference material in that... Shimgray | talk | 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Logos and fair use reduction[edit]

I was thinking about whether using gfdl/pd photos of corporate logos on signs and ibllboards would be good to reduce the amoun tof fair use needed in articles. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't make a free derivative work of an unfree image. Photographing a creative work doesn't negate the creativity that went into the original, and so doesn't negate its copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In other words, even if you freely license your logo photo, any rights that the company has to the logo itself may still prevent the photo from being used under free license terms. Deco 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this apply to things I own? Like if I buy a bottle of coke and make a picture of it, can I not make it a PD image because of the creativity that went into the packagin is protected by copyright? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but I believe you would possess limited rights to the photo and its organization, due to the creative input of lighting, angle, and composition, but not to the art on the label. In many such circumstances the label art may be considered fair use. The shape of the packaging may or may not be subject to copyright - there's been at least one recent ruling in which the shape of a vodka bottle was ruled to be ineligible for copyright protection (ref). A good page to ask more about this is Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Whether or not you own the object copyrighted material is printed on doesn't matter - I can buy a book or magazine full of copyrighted material. Deco 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The Ninth Circuit has indeed ruled that "Because [the] shots are shots of the bottle as a whole--a useful article not subject to copyright protection--and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a 'preexisting work' within the meaning of the Copyright Act." This would suggest that the importance of the copyrightable material in the photo would be of significance; the court felt that since the utilitarian bottle as a whole was what was being photographed, and the potentially copyrightable label was only a part of that, it wasn't sufficient to justify calling the photo a derivative work. The same logic would potentially apply to some photographs of copyrighted things, but not those that are intended to be used primarily to display the copyrighted matter. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Article titles for acronyms - should all words in the acronym be capitalized?[edit]

I'll admit it, the Wikipedia:MOS is just too big to wade through to find the answer. The specific case in point is should the article Flashing rear end device be moved to Flashing Rear End Device since it is usually referred to by its acronym of FRED? Oops, in previewing this post I see that Flashing Rear End Device already exists as a redirect to Flashing rear end device. So should I change the link in FRED to the one with Caps even though that would add a redirect to the path? The benefit would be clarity, so does that override the desire to bypass a redirect? Spalding 15:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Flashing rear end device is not a proper noun and is not capitalized. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
But check this out: http://www.google.com/search?q=flashing+rear+end+device&hl=en&hs=gkl&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10&sa=N
A web search turns the phrase up as capitalized everywhere except for Wikipedia and clones. Spalding 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the answer to this would vary from acronym to acronym. POTUS extends to "President of the United States," but FUBAR extends to "fucked up beyond all repair," as there's no proper nouns involved. I imagine many people might capitalize the extended form for additional clarity, especially when explaining the acronym, but I don't believe that's the correct use for common nouns. Luna Santin 11:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There are many hits uncapitalized. See [2][3][4][5][6][7], etc. There appear to be fewer, but most websites aren't proofread; we don't have to follow their erratic and nonstandard usages. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrator needed for minor edit to Template:Unsigned2[edit]

Would an administrator please go to Template:Unsigned2 and remove the affixed comment, in line with the same change on Template:Unsigned. You may see also the comment on Template talk:Unsigned2, this does not need to be appended every use of this template. —Centrxtalk 05:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Matter closed: A kind, gentle administrator has responded to my frenzied cries for help and corrected the problem. —Centrxtalk 06:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In the future, you can use {{edit protected}}. But as for the issue, the tag is there to at least attempt to satisfy the requirements of the GFDL that all authors of a page be listed. Template substitution has no built-in mechanism to do this. Transclusion, at least, allows lists of contributors to be generated; substitution does not without some kind of additional notice. Yes, of course we all recognize the template, but not everyone is "we". Authors of any substituted template without those tags are going unattributed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


help[edit]

im searching 4 teatro metropolitan

Please clarify your request. I don't understand. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

Can an article's title begin with a set of ellipses? Joyous! | Talk 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it. You could always have tried, you know.  :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Straw Poll" on War on Terrorism and Iraq[edit]

At Wikipedia:WOT there is a non binding poll taking place, along with discussion on whether the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism. Anyone interested in putting their own input and arguments into the fray are welcome to, as we are trying to reach a consensus. Rangeley 00:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Confused user[edit]

In my travels on WP:FPC I have come across a new user - User:ButterLips, otherwise known as Dessie. From the current date, she registered three days ago (22:42, 11 June 2006 was her first edit), but I am suspicious. As soon as she created an account, she was making quite advanced edits on WP:FPC, although these were the only edits she made. Other than to her userpage, which brings me to the confusion. She cannot seem to decide who she is, as far as her Wikipedia personality goes. According to the diffs of her page history:

  • At 22:48, 11 June 2006, she was a teenaged Taurus.
  • At 22:59, 11 June 2006, she also became a nudist, schizophrenic lesbian artist.
  • At 23:27, 11 June 2006, she decided to be a transsexual recluse as well, married to her male cousin. She also decided she had Hepatitis/HIV, was a homeless great-grandmother (no longer a teenager), and enjoys woodworking, salsa dancing, paganism and is confused about her sexuality. Oh, and enjoys horse sandwiches.
  • At 23:30, 11 June 2006, she decided she wasn't married to her cousin any more, nor a Sassinad - a possible misspelling of Sassanid. Which is interesting, as she previously stated herself (and still does) as an African-American.
  • Then at 23:55, 11 June 2006 she decided she was married to her first cousin (got married at 60), had a daughter named Debbie who was raped at age 12, who then had a son called Quigsford. He eloped with another girl at the age of 15, and they had a son called Yuwaz, which apparently means "Baby-who-will-smell-like-the-fragrant-morning-flowers-that-grow-along-the-trailer-which-leads-to-Utopia". She was proud of this, so started making doughnuts, and now owns three doughnut bakeries.


I am asking for a consensus as to whether this person appears suspicious - a sockpuppet perhaps? Just to alleviate my suspicion, I suggest some slight further investigation into the matter. —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. More likely, they're an experienced Wikipedian who recently created a new account and just enjoys putting silly things on their user page. Deco 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems they are also involved in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/GarrettRock. —Vanderdeckenξφ 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey! You guys are talking about ME! Thanks! I'm flattered. However, I would like to question your reasons for nominating me as a sockpuppet. While I did enjoy the 2 works of User:GarrettRock that I saw, I also admire the works of a few others on the site as well. I have no affiliation with the other sock puppets mentioned on the site listing GarrettRock's so named "sock puppets" and don't appreciate the accusation. About my user page, User:Deco has it correct. I don't believe in posting normal, boring things on my various user pages, just as I don't believe in sharing personal information on the web. I'd appreciate if you'd stop calling me a sockpuppet, and if it would please you, I'll quit commenting on GarrettRock's artwork, even though I feel it isn't right of you to decide who I should vote for and whose artwork I can delight in. User:ButterLips 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And I'd like to question your reasons for placing your rant in the middle of my signature, thereby making it green. I have no problem with you voting and commenting on anyone else's images per se, but your involvement in the suspected sockpuppet case and the peculiarity of your userpage aroused a small amount of suspicion. I'll leave the jury at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/GarrettRock to decide. And are you sure you meant to say 'various userpages'? Because if you didn't, you may have just dropped a clanger... —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
User:ButterLips has now been blocked infinitely. Seems that you were a sockpuppet after all... Up yours, WP:FAITH. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing text colour with Div[edit]

This one has been driving me a little crazy! I am experimenting with using text on an image to create pictures that link to pages (rather than the image page) for use on my user page. I have gotten things mostly as I want them, User:SFC9394/Sandbox, and the idea is either to change the "border" colour to something nicer than the standard link blue, or change it to the same colour as the background so it becomes invisible, and thus the picture just becomes a straight link. However I have gone round in circles trying to force it to change - nothing seems to affect its colour (but yet "font-size" in the style header changes the text size, so it is not that the text properties can’t be changed). I have some basic HTML experience, but only basic stuff, so I don't know if what I want to do is simply not possible, or whether it is easy and I am just trying to navigate through a forest with a blindfold on! Any help that other editors can provide would be greatly received, SFC9394 16:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just noticed Template:Click which seems to be exactly what I was looking for (and was trying to reproduce without knowing things 100%!) - so request for help withdrawn! SFC9394 16:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Text in SVG[edit]

As this is my first ever SVG file I made, please don't be too harsh. ;) There was this image, Image:Nederlands-Verkeersbord-J6.png, which I wanted to replace with a SVG. So, I downloaded Inkscape, worked on it, and uploaded it onto Wikipedia as Image:Netherland 10% Downward Slope.svg. I had to upload 3 more versions after that initial one. The first one was to resize the size of the SVG, since there were a lot of empty space. (See original.) For some reason, the 10% text that was to appear wasn't visible. The next two edits were wasted to try and make it appear. (See first and second edits.) As for the last attempt, I went to the XML and manually edited the x and y positions (which weren't too accurate). (See fourth edit.) This time, the "text box" was visible, but it was all black, like this:   10%  . Another thing to note is that the text was supposed to be tilted. (See original PNG image.) Could someone who is familiar with SVG, help me? Thank you. Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't help you with your technical issues, but I'll note that since you're dealing with a government standard, I would suggest you try to be a bit more precise in your duplication in any case. In particular, try to get the main containing triangle to have rounded corners the way the PNG does, and make sure the font is identical (when you get it to show up!). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am fairly new to SVG myself but have managed to fix it. I have uploaded a new imaged to Image:Netherland 10% Downward Slope-Alt.svg. I made two changes: (1) I deleted the text and added it back in again. I have no idea why this made a difference but it worked. (2) I then went into the XML editor and gradually expanded each node-this in turn selects the item in the main window. I found there was a black box which wasn't showing normally showing up in Inkscape main window. I deleted this in the XML editor and everything worked. --MarkS (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with reverts[edit]

Hello. I don't know what to do in this situation. So I ask for advice.

There is a page WP:CYR (it should be guideline? while there is no mention there). Some days ago one user changed it to reflect his own feeling of how things should be, while the question regarding this change was raised on the Talk page and no consensus was reached. Today I've reverted the page back to reflect that his change is controversial and shouldn't be put on the page; but he reverted back, and two times more, and now he threatens me with 3RR violation, because today I was the first one to revert. Sadly this page is not watched very well so nobody could revert his change right after he had done it; is it really right that now his own POV is shown on the guideline page and nobody could change it without facing sanctions due to policies?

Thank you! --Monk 13:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Being part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it is probably to be treated as policy. However, breaking 3RR to enforce policy wouldn't excuse you. Before you cross that line, please either attempt to resolve your differences with the force of policy, invite further discussion from others, or take it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Deco 14:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Er, please don't take it to WP:RFAr, because it will be instantly rejected if you haven't extensively tried to resolve it beforehand. Instead, make a note of it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, or perhaps here, wherever. Thanks to 3RR, you only have to recruit one other person for the page to remain on the correct revision, assuming your summary of the situation is accurate. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my poor wording. RFA as always is a last resort. Deco 06:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In page links[edit]

How do these work? For example how would one make a link to the ==== heading "Ko (no repetition of the same shape)" in Rules of Go. I've tried Rules of Go#Ko (no repetition of the same shape) and it doesn't seem to work. -- SGBailey 07:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa - it just worked. Confused... -- SGBailey 07:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Go and type in #Ko (no repetition of the same shape), or even #Ko_(no_repetition_of_the_same_shape), the URL will be malformed and quite possibly will not work, because parentheses in URLs must be percent-encoded. If you use the wikilink format, however, the software will automatically percent-encode what you enter, so the displayed header text can generally be copy-pasted.

In general, to get a link to a section, you can click a link in the table of contents and then copy and paste what's in your browser's URL bar. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ng (character, letter, digraph)[edit]

I have just found that Ng (character) and Ng (letter) have their contents redirected to Ng (digraph). However, their contents are not retained, and people cannot track back the history. Can any of the sysops here help to combine these 3 articles into one, so we can track back the article history as well as retaining the original content?--Tomchiukc 04:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need sysop access to get them back. Just click on the links (which will redirect) and then look for the little redirect link between the title and the first part of the article. That will take you back to the redirect page itself. Alternatively, I'll post them both for you. [8] and [9]. Good luck and be sure to discuss any big changes at the relevant talk pages first.--Kchase02 T 09:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Image:Pine View School seal.svg problems[edit]

I'm having a few unrelated problems with the aformentioned image. First of all, its thumbnails are empty images. The image is out there, but when it's resized, I just get an empty placeholder. Second, I'm not sure how to tag the file. A friend of mine created the image, and I assert fair use for the design. What should it be tagged under? Thanks for the help. --Starwiz 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I just wasn't patient enough with all this stuff. Everything is working perfectly now. Sorry for the clutter, --Starwiz 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Two errors with templates[edit]

I spotted two errors with two seperate templates. I don't know enough wiki markup to fix the templates, so I'm pointing out the errors.

On 1 Meat and 2 Veg's user page, the template has a spelling error. "indefinately" should be spelled as "indefinitely".

In addition, in the "Major computing companies" template at the bottom of the Yahoo! article, Google, Yahoo! and eBay are listed as software companies. This is factually incorrect, as these companies are dot-com corporations, not software companies. Their realm is the Internet.

Once you have fixed the errors, if you wish to offer me advice on how to fix such errors in templates should I spot more errors in future, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, its easy to edit templates to an extent. You can edit in the same way as normal pages and change the plain text - although watch out for anything in side combinations of { because these are part of special syntax. See here for more info on templates. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a "template sandbox"? If so, I may try some experiments. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As to the second 'error' they are all companies that deal with software - just internet software so I think the distinction is ok. All I will say is that Google deal in hardware as well so I am moving that to the joint category --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
How does Google deal in hardware? Perhaps we could find a better page to discuss whether eBay, Yahoo! and Google should be listed under "software companies", or whether a "dot-coms" section should be created for them. Most people think of them as dot-coms, not software companies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Google sell servers to corporate clients too, there is no real template sandbox but just using a sub pae to your userpage works fine. All templates are stored in the Template: namespace and probably the best place to express your concerns are on the talk page of that template. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 08:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know that Google sells servers! What kind of servers do they sell? Regarding a template sandbox - if I create any templates in the Template: namespace for testing, they'll probably be deleted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a typo in the featured article, cannot figure out how to fix[edit]

The current featured article has a typo ("evdence"). I can edit the page, being an admin, but it doesn't contain the article text (it is presumably called in some non-obvious (to me) way). It it not calling the actual article, as the typo doesn't exist in the actual article. So what's the deal? Herostratus 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving a note on the main page's talk page. ViridaeTalk 02:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, good idea. Herostratus
Looking at the source for Main Page, the (protected) summary of today's featured article is always at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/month day, year, e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2006. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
And for non admins, there is Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Garion96 (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I think its over now —Minun SpidermanReview Me 12:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Explaining NPOV[edit]

Perhaps someone could spare a few minutes and have a look at the Democracy (disambiguation) disambig page. This dab page has been tagged with a {{NPOV}} tag and the user who added the tag doesn't seem to understand it's an inapropriate tag for their disagreement and if they are absolutely determined to tag it with something then there are more appropriate ones to use! More info at Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)#NPOV is inappropriate. Thanks/wangi 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguation page could be POV, though I don't think that is the case here. A disambiguation page on a particular subject could be designed to redirect selectively. For example, a disabiguations page for "love songs" could redirect only to country and western love songs, and not to hip hop love songs. Rick Norwood 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for spending a moment to respond Rick - unfortunately your comments on the talk page must have fell on deaf ears :) The tags still on the dabpage, the discussion is still circular! Thanks/wangi 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this article a WP violation?[edit]

Simple question: PlayCoed is an article which appears to be nothing but a promotional commercial for a for-profit business website. In general isn't this against Wikipedia policy since there's no other significance to it?

As a side question, I see several "bogus" references including one that supports article content "PlayCoed is currently one of the fastest-growing websites on the World Wide Web [2]" however the linked reference is about YouTube.com and makes zero references to PlayCoed.com - it's a totally fake reference. In addition "they" have been "attacking" various other articles such as Kickball adding links throughout Wikipedia to their commercial website even though their link is not any more significant content value than 1,000 other spam links would be. (That would be like putting external links to Bank of America in every city article where they have an ATM - it may have a possible connection but it's just not significant to the article)

Advice please. Fife Club 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Haerd choice it could be considered notable for an NPOV article - but currently that article is very opinionated and I think that it should probably go through AFD or asked to be rewritten (sticking a tag on it now! :D ).
Thanks. What tag should be stuck on it? (And what is AFD?) Fife Club
Never mind. I now see that you guys were all over that. Thanks. Fife Club 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As to the link spamming try and find an accomodating admin to warn and possibly ban them for a short time - see if that helps :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Their" link spamming may be difficult to enforce because although PlayCoed.com keeps showing up as external links on articles for sports they offer, it's ususally from unregistered IP addresses.Fife Club 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have listed the article for deletion, please leave you comments: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 1#PlayCoed. Thanks/wangi 22:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

which time zone does wikipedia use?[edit]

Hi...Can anyone tell me which of the world's timezones wikipedia uses when an article mentions a specific time? Are they standardized to one timezone? thank you.

Generally times as shown in articles are put in by an editor, so it's up to that editor. Usually (or hopefully!) they'll state what timezone they are talking about, and often give the equivalent time in UTC. See, for example, the article on a Space Shuttle flight (STS-114), which says:

The Space Shuttle Discovery launched at 10:39 EDT (14:39 UTC), July 26, 2005.

If you're talking about the times added by the Wiki automatically, like the ones you'll see on an edit history, these are set either by the local time according to your browser or, for registered users, their preferred timezone and format according to their own personal profile. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Catullus[edit]

This article links to a number of articles about specific poems of Catullus which feature source texts and translations. Someone should move them to wikisource, I don't have time now. --Samael775 17:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have time to insert a {{Move to Wikisource}} at the top of those pages? — RJH (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know there was such a template. Thanks. --Samael775 02:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary usage and edit count[edit]

How do I quickly check my edit summary usage and edit count? I know there are tools for this, used in RFAs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Request Icey on his talk page. He gives a very very detailed report. -- Lost(talk) 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
These are the other two tools that work for me: [10], [11] -- Lost(talk) 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Holy freaking cow! I'm over 19,000... I have no life. :-/ — RJH (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinions Wanted[edit]

I have been trying to get opinions from my fellow Wikipedians on a potentially controversial issue. While doing internet research for the article I created on Oklahoma judge James E. Edmondson, I found a credible website which states that his daughter, Sarah Edmondson went on a crime spree with her boyfriend, which involved two robberies, a murder, and an attempted murder. For the past month, I have been trying to get opinions from other users in order to determine the appropriateness of including this information in the James E. Edmondson Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, I have only gotten feedback from one other user. See Talk:James E. Edmondson for fuller details. --TommyBoy 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, anything fitting into the policy would be acceptable, and I believe that would fit in, cheers —Minun SpidermanReview Me 19:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How do I change the background picture, as an administrator?[edit]

Hi. I am the administrator of my website where I have used the MediaWiki format. I want to change the background picture of the open book. I know that the file is headbg and can be found in skins/monobook, but I can't seem to overwrite it or delete it. Please help. Thank you. James, London, 30 July 2006, 14:41 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.209.83 (talkcontribs)

Add to your CSS
body
{
background-image:url(url)
}
To find the url, upload the image, click on its name underneath, copy and paste the url, and it should work.
Also, remember to bypass your cache —Minun SpidermanReview Me 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit count[edit]

This may sound a bit trivial and essentially it is, but I was curious as to the level of my edits, ie, how many I had. The two versions of the edit count system appear to be outdated and incorrect, labelling my edits at 1219, which was the level I left it at last December. I was wondering if anybody would be willing and able to tell me my actual level of edits, and/or suggest a link to check them myself. Thank you! Wikiwoohoo 12:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Full summary about to be posted to your talk page using Interiot's tool. You can use the same. ViridaeTalk 13:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It says that that tool is no updating, I think its some sort of bug, try Essjay's tool, cheers —Minun SpidermanReview Me 10:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That version is - its tool2, the one used in RfAs. ViridaeTalk 10:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both very much. It is very useful and you have both been very helpful. Wikiwoohoo 12:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with translations[edit]

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help, then please help by filling in the blanks. Thanks, --Soman 12:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Before uploading all these articles, please familiarize yourself with the "local" rules of the other Wikipedias. For example, in the German Wikipedia, your articles are more likely to be deleted than here; particularly if parties haven't won any seats (I assume some haven't because of the translations you requested), or are only active on a local level. —da Pete (ばか) 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

User:Wiki_alf is accusing me of uploading images that I didnt upload and claiming I vandalised. What should I do? --Piugmene 10:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe stop vandalizing and trolling? --Chris (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No I didnt. This is stupid. I didnt do anything wrong. I am only trying to edit constructivly. --Piugmene 10:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your upload log says you did upload them. Either you're vandalising and trolling or someone has got hold of your password. Try changing your password or stopping vandalising and trolling, whichever applies. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikification of magic squares[edit]

At magic square, several squares are depicted by bitmap images. IMO, there are several problems with using a bitmap for a table of numbers:

  • It does not scale with the browser font size.
  • It is often displayed in a different font from anything else in the article.
  • Editing, if necessary, becomes a hassle.
  • A screen reader (or any other text-based browser) cannot process it.
  • It's inefficient in terms of bandwidth and disk space — Wikipedia's two scarcest commodities.

Thus, I've started replacing them (except photos/scans of primary documents) with tables. Unfortunately, I need another pair of hands. (Once all the bitmap squares have been replaced, I can go back to the prior revision and tag them all for deletion.) NeonMerlin 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

you don't have to use an image, read Help:Table to create a table, cheers —Minun SpidermanReview Me 10:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects to Arimaa Wikibooks[edit]

The material in Arimaa tactics and Arimaa strategy has been absorbed into and surpassed by the | Arimaa Wikibook. However, I don't want to delete the Wikipedia pages entirely, because I know of several exteral links to them. Is it in accordance with Wikipedia policy to leave Arimaa tactics and Arimaa strategy as redirects pointing to the Wikibook? I would of course like to leave the main Arimaa article intact in any case. Thanks in advance. --Fritzlein 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You could do a Soft RedirectMinun Spiderman 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't. Soft redirects to MediaWiki projects are deprecated, the article would almost assuredly be deleted as empty content. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Should Homerun redirect? If so, to which article?[edit]

Moved to Talk:Homerun.

Meets Wiki:Music ?[edit]

Dunno my back from my front when it comes to Wiki:Music, but I've a suspicion that the subject of the article They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (Band) does not meet the criteria. Anyone who knows Wiki:Music better should perhaps take a look. (Only one album, not charted, no major tour as far as I can tell etc...) Is it OK or a candidate for deletion? Needless to say most of the google hits seem to refer to the film, book or song of that name rather than the band. Marcus22 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bit iffy. List it for deletion and see what happens. ViridaeTalk 14:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Map in Swiss town infobox[edit]

I tried to add a map to the article Höfen, Thun inside the Swiss town infobox. But it did not display. I looked at the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Swiss town and it said (1) that the Map field had been “commented out”, but also (2) that With class="hiddenStructure", it's now easy to add optional fields. Thus I included some of the fields available in other languages and already added to the articles, but not displayed due to the fact the fields weren't always available. -- User:Docu How can I get the map to display properly in the Swiss town infobox? Bejnar 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I added it back (conditionally). You might want to update the appearance a bit. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture in Bulbasaur article[edit]

In today's featured article about the Pokemon character Bulbasaur, some clown put two large penis pictures in there. Please delete these pics - it was real embarassing to come across this as I sat at my desk at work. My name is Gail Anderson, and if you need to contact me, my e-mail is: removed e-mail address

I really don't think you want to broadcast your e-mail address to everyone. It looks to me like the offensive images have already been removed. Vandalism like that is an unfortunate downside to what Wikipedia strives to be. You always have to take the bad with the good. It's unfortunate that you viewed the page before someone came along and fixed it. ONUnicorn 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
it was vandalism to the {{Pokenum}} template, cheers —Minun SpidermanReview Me 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiFriends[edit]

I seriously need help. I've tried everything, even randomly giving away barnstars but I can't make any WikiFriends. Can some good editor please help me, cheers —Minun Spiderman 18:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't think Wikipedia was about making friends. Wikipedia is more about providing information, ensuring its accuracy, etc. If making friends happens as an extension of that, then yippee, but if the reason you are here is to make friends then you've come to the wrong place. I think most Wikipedia editors more or less ignore eachother unless there's a problem with an article. Frankly, I think that's a good thing. You seem to be doing a lot of good work on articles, and I hope you enjoy that and stay. For times when that isn't enough and you want friends, however, there are lots of other websites out there that are about making friends and connections; but the best thing I can think of or reccomend for making friends is to get off the dang computer and get out in the real world where people go to socialize. ONUnicorn 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with the above comment more. If you meet people online while persuing your interests -- great. If your sole purpose is to make friends, then step back from the computer (after switching it off) and actually step --outside-- and talk to someone! There's a lot of fun people out there in the Real World! --Rehcsif 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Recsif and OnUnicorn have a point. Æon Insane Ward 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, what I meant most was like getting users who ask me for help, like i've so with other users, and useers who trust you. Morelike users who would support you in requests, anyway, cheers —Minun Spiderman 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a social networking site, but is still a great way of making friends. When editing articles on one's interests, one is likely to meet other Wikipedians with similar interests, usually on the talk pages or edit histories of such articles, and these are potential Wikifriends. Wikifriends can collaborate on articles of interest, and help each other when the going gets tough or stressful. Hope my insight helps. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be merged?[edit]

Or maybe deleted? Expanded? Hotelling Effect or Hotelling's law? (I'm talking about the effect, but I just found the law; are they the same?) Given the Hotelling's law article, I think I'm leaning towards deleting the Hotelling Effect. Xaxafrad 04:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say merge Hotelling Effect into Hotelling's law (if that is the correct name - make sure) then make one a redirect to the other. ViridaeTalk 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

City Sewage on Heath Lane?[edit]

We are wondering when is Heath Lane going to get City Sewage? We are incorporated into the city with city electric and water, but when will we get the hookup to city sewage? Thank You! Beverly and Raymond —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.186.1.14 (talkcontribs) .

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking. Nationalparks 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). For your convenience, here's the link: Reference Desk (when you get there, just select the relevant section, and ask away). I hope this helps. -- Lost 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well first, I suspect the asker needs to specify some minor things, like maybe WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED?? I bet there's a bazillion "Heath Lanes" in the world. I also doubt that anyone in Wikiland knows the answer to this. The city itself may not even know for sure. Annexing services usually involves lots of meetings, planning, etc... --Rehcsif 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope they mean "Sewerage" rather than "Sewage". Sewerage be the pipes, sewage be what goes in them. I doubt they want sewage, city or not, on Heath Lane (wherever it may be). Tonywalton  | Talk 13:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wyandotte cave, Wyandotte Caves, and Wyandotte Caves/Temp[edit]

Whilst doing other things I noticed the article Wyandotte Caves on the copywrite violations list. In accordance with the copywrite violations message, I began to write an article to go in that space. After putting two days and more effort into Wyandotte Caves/Temp than I have put into any other Wikipedia article to date, I discovered Wyandotte cave. Now I don't know what to do. I would appreciate it if someone could look at my article and at Wyandotte cave and give me a bit of advice. Some points to consider:

  • There are 2 seperate caves that make up Wyandotte caves. Wyandotte cave is one of those 2 caves.
  • The article at Wyandotte cave is mostly lifted from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
  • The article at Wyandotte caves is longer, more detailed and (imho) better written (but then, I'm biased).
  • I immediately stopped all work on Wyandotte caves when I discovered Wyandotte cave, so it's far from "done" (not that any Wikipedia article is ever done).

ONUnicorn 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you merge the info in both the articles and let one redirect towards the other? -- Lost 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That was my thought, but which location should the final merged article wind up at? Wyandotte Cave or Wyandotte Caves? I really don't think there's enough material or noteworthieness to have 3 articles (one on each of the two caves and one on the two caves together). Right now I'm leaning towards Wyandotte Caves, but I wanted to see what other people thought first. ONUnicorn 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Because Wyandotte Caves appears to be a proper noun, as opposed to just a description of some caves, then the proper final article title should be Wyandotte Caves. I would merge everything into that one article. Feel free to be bold here, no need to be 'fair' persay per se (which seems to be misused here since "per se" is Latin and means "through itself (by its own nature)" --Richard 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC))". Just make sure that the final version includes all the information from the others, even if it doesn't include the exact text or images. Then, on the other two articles, after merging, replace their text with #REDIRECT [[Wyandotte Caves]]. Make sure you leave descriptive edit summaries so people can figure out what you did, and why, later on. The only wrinkle to this is if we determine "Wyandotte Caves" not to be a full proper noun, in which case the proper final article title would be "Wyandotte caves". I'll leave that to you, since you know more about them. Phidauex 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for lookin' out for me, Richard. I'm not much of a grammaticitician.
Thanks for the advice. Now an additional question, how long does the temp article stay on the temp page before the copyvio is sorted out and the article can be moved to the main namespace? And shouldn't I wait to redirect the existing article until the finished article is in the main namespace instead of a temporary location? ONUnicorn 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the copyvio can be sorted out as soon as you have a suitable replacement article. Once you've got something vaguely presentable in the /Temp page, let the user who created the copyvio notice know (in this case, User:W.marsh), so it can be moved into place. When that is done, then change the other two articles to redirects. Phidauex 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference trouble[edit]

I want to add a reference. There are two book editors, one author of the chapter I'm using, and the author cites the original source of the fact. Do I use the original source? If not, how do I cite this reference? It is called "The World's Writing Systems," and it was published by Oxford University Press in 1996 in New York. I've cited a few things, but this one stumps me. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You should cite the more reliable of the two sources, I think. The link covers quite in detail, what a reliable source is -- Lost 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, thank you Lost......I was trying to find a page like this (angrily mumbles at self)...... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
But wait.....it still doesn't say in any of this stuff if I should cite the book's editor or the chapter's author. Which one? Or is there a way to cite both? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Template talk:cite book discusses the standard citation template and available parameters. Dragons flight 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

factually incorrect information[edit]

Some articles disagree on a certain fact. I dont know which is right and can not determine right away for sure.

[12] states "In February 1999, Najaf's most senior cleric, Muħammad Sādiq as-Sadr, was murdered along with his two sons in Baghdad - the third killing of Shiite clerics in less than a year."

[13] states "Muhammad Sādiq as-Sadr (Arabic محمّد صادق الصدر ) is the father of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Muhammad Sadiq as-Sadr (1943-1999) and grandfather of Muqtada as-Sadr (b.1973). Sometimes the son is called by his Father's name."

There is no birth nor death date, nor any details of his death.

[14] states "Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr (Arabic محمد محمّد صادق الصدر; Muhammad Muhammad Sādiq as-Sadr) (March 23, 1943 - February 19, 1999), often referred to as Muhammad Sadiq as-Sadr which was his father's name, was a prominent, moderate Iraqi Shiite cleric of the rank Grand Ayatollah". The article lists his death date as Febuary of 1999. This article goes on to say "He was killed under mysterious circumstances in the Iraqi city of al-Najaf at the age of fifty five along with two of his sons as they drove through the town."

Either both father and son Mohammad Sadeq al_Sadr were killed in Febuary, 1999 under mysterious circumstances with two of their sons losing 6 family members in one month, or the Najaf article mistakenly refers to the father rather than the son and gets the city wrong (Baghdad vs Najaf) as to where the killing happened.

I have not been able to confirm the facts, but believe that something is wrong here somewhere. When i am not sure of my facts i do no editing. Does wikipedia have a fact checker?

This is my first post here and may not be referencing the links properly so bear with me.

sam2049

Hi, Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Unless information can be verified, it does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. There are various templates that ou could put on the statements that you think may need to be verified. They may be found here -- Lost 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Creating A New Article[edit]

How do you create a new article?

Please leave 1 on my talk page, thanks.

Thanks

100110100 08:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Headed over to talk...--Kchase T 08:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I've been both contributing and following the help pages inasmuch as I have time to do so. I've obviously missed something important, and so far haven't seen it in the help files. Real simple, can I change the edit summaries and related information on a page I've created or updated after the fact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RadioKAOS (talkcontribs) .

I don't know of any way to change an edit summary after it's been "Saved", but that's not a comprehensive answer because there's a rather large number of things that I don't know :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The best, and only, way I've found to make a correction if you screw up your edit summary is to make a null edit, and finish what you were saying that way. The only situation in which I can think of this happening is when I accidently tagged something as minor that wasn't. --tjstrf 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What is a "Null edit?" I was under the impression that if you didn't change anything in the article, the edit would not be saved. That's at least what happened when I tried it in the sandbox. --TeaDrinker 06:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose to answer the question at hand, generally don't worry about it. I don't think it is possible, except by admin action (and I don't know they do anything more than delete the edit). Most of the time, the edit summary is a guide, but no one really expects them to be perfect (I can't count the number of times I have spelled edit "eidt" in a summary). I'm not sure what the "related information" refers to... --TeaDrinker 06:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen pages where an edit supposedly took place but I can determine no difference between the two versions. With no red characters showing up and a side by side comparison showing no difference.--Crossmr 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Null editing is easily accomplished by simply adding an extra line at the end of the article. It won't show up, and has no impact on the article appearance. --tjstrf 06:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Should have thought of that myself. Thanks. --TeaDrinker 06:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that was wrong. I meant to say line, not space. Sorry. --tjstrf 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with categorizing...[edit]

Could someone categorize an article for me? The article url below should be in Electronic Musicians category (under M ofcourse). Is there a way to make it like other musician wikis? I would like to adjust this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercurius_FM

Cheers.

Done. For future reference, to add an article to a category, type the following at the bottom of the article:
[[Category:Category name goes here]] --tjstrf 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
And, to alpahabetize something by last name in a category, do this:
[[Category:Category name|Last name, first name]] — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Operating System Advocacy - Inappropriate picture?[edit]

Operating system advocacy contains what I (and at least one other editor) consider to be a gratuitous inappropriate image of a woman being body-painted. The same image is appropriate on the Body painting page. I am sensitive to, as well as strongly opposed to sexual harassment so I have a hard time being objective here. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored and I've also read the referenced Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive and Wikipedia:Profanity, and I don't think any of them apply. This is an article about computer operating systems, and I don't think the image is necessary, encyclopedic, or relevant. I also believe that if anything it represents "Advertising" not "Advocacy", and based on the picture I have some question as to whether it's consensual (the model is not posing, but rather shown "candid" while still being painted; the image was taken from some foreign-language Wiki.) Unfortunately other editors on the page think the image is "rather charming" and illustrates a Linux user advocating. Since the talk page hasn't resolved anything and instead just makes me madder, I'm looking for some outside opinions. Thanks for assistance.--Justfred 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The image does represent advocacy, since the article is about promotion which is not conducted by the company itself but rather fans of the company, and the fact that someone would have themselves painted into a mascot is a clear example of advocacy. Whether it is the best image one could use is another question entirely. I also don't understand what sexual harassment has to do with this, unless they forced her to get painted up like that. --tjstrf 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think the person is an actual user - and there's no way of knowing. I don't think body painting is a common, or even uncommon, method of promoting an operating system - I think they found one example that was probably from a trade show; I don't think there are a lot of other images of people with OS logos painted on themselves for fun because it simply isn't done - that's not how OS advocacy works. I think that showing images like this is, with no context, is objectification, constitutes sexual harassment of Wiki users, and is wrong. If anyone can find or show other images that don't involve nudity, that would be fine (but as I said unlikely because this isn't really OS advocacy), but the nudity in this context is not necessary to the content of the article.--Justfred 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
not sure if anyone suggested that, but when channels and magazines want to show something but they think it's offensive, they sometimes hide the offensive parts and still show it. --fs 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be an even more direct breach of the no censorship principle. --tjstrf 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with that picture. The girl was obviously not coerced into the body painting and wether she is an actual user is beside the point. Wikipedia is not censored and there are much more obvious nude pictures in other articles. ViridaeTalk 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, I just don't understand why it's necessary. The picture does not shock or disgust me; I just don't see what it adds to the article and I don't understand why it's defended so strongly. And no one has convinced me that people really advocate for Linux by body painting - what they've reminded me is how many computer advocates have a different sense of what is and is not appropriate - often to the detriment of their cause. Wikipedia is not a boys' club, with pictures of naked chicks on the walls. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia - a reference work. Implying that people advocate for Linux with body painting is a lie - and the fact that the proponents of this picture haven't been able to produce a suitable non-nude alternative illustrates that. I would be far more apt to believe that people get OS tattoos than that they body paint; I know I've seen these at least. I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does.--Justfred 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And no one has convinced me that people really advocate for Linux by body painting I don't know whats more convincing than a photo of it happening... ViridaeTalk 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, where is the _advocacy_ ?? The subject of the article? There's a body with SUSE logos. How is this advocacy, and not advertising - SUSE is a commercial product. A tattoo - that very well might be advocacy.--Justfred 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Implying that people advocate for Linux with body painting is a lie" Really? I thought photographic proof was considered sufficient evidence for most people... or do you intend to claim it's a photoshop job? Also, he submitted this for mediation, here. --tjstrf 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the article's talk page has resolved the issue, judging from the clear majority in favor of keeping it. And regarding your statement that the image implicates a lie, I'm rather confused. Do you believe that the image was staged? On the article's talk page, you yourself referred to the image subject as a "trade show ‘booth babe,’" which suggests that you yourself recognize the degree to which sexy women are used as promotional gimmicks in this context so much so that you have a slang term for it. And that is the only issue here— whether painted nude women have been used promotionally, as the image depicts, which is a fact-specific issue for the article's contributors to work out, not one we should be discussing here in the abstract. You've muddied the waters by raising "objectification," which goes to value judgments as to whether painted nude women should be used promotionally. Postdlf 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. His objections are not relevant to wikipedia, but rather to western culture. The idea that we should deny the existance of something because it doesn't fit with our views of how reality should be IS censorship, the same way pulling To Kill a Mockingbird from the school curriculum because you want to deny the existance of the word "nigger" is. --tjstrf 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning[edit]

I am so confused. I just got the following notice on my user talk page: "This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --User:Railer 893 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)" Railer 893 doesn't have a user page, so I can't respond. What does this mean? The only thing I've done is fix some typos on today's featured article (which had about eight typos, by the way). Is that considered vandalism? Someone please advise what I should do. Thanks for your help. Nathan Beach 15:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will check his contribs and find out could have been a mistake. Aeon Insane Ward 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Railer 893 is a vandal Nathan don't worry what you did was perfect and what the Wikineeds Check your talk page I left a little something there to make your day better. Aeon Insane Ward 16:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Aeon. I wonder how he/she picked me out. Have a good Monday. Nathan Beach 16:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's still at it -- he just wrote on my user talk page and his User:Railer 893 now has some copied text that makes him look like a vandalisma patroller. What a time waster. --Nathan Beach 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The GNAA AfD counter may provide a clue to his motives here, unless he simply copy-pasted that as well. --tjstrf 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I left a message for User:Naconkantari (the user and talk pages he copied). Nationalparks 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Now Railer is indefinitely banned. Nationalparks 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signature Problems[edit]

Due to my inability to Fix my signature, I must ask help from you. Please! I buggered it up beyond recogniton!

  • I want it to be this:

[User:Dfrg.msc|User:Dfrg.msc] [Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg|45px] (Exept with double ]['s) and a date and time.

  • What it is:

[[ User:Dfrg.msc | User:Dfrg.msc [[ Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg | 45px ]]]] 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I enter it into the My preferences box and save it. When I type my signature (~~ ~~) it just adds all the dashes ect.

Please help.

My signature is broken so follow the link. User talk:Dfrg.msc

Well for a start images in sigs are frowned upon not allowed, see WP:SIG. ViridaeTalk 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

about the promophoto template[edit]

hi, someone removed Image:Tb-ab.jpg from Thora Birch because it was supposed to be fair use only if used on the movie's article, however, I mentioned Kevin Spacey has an image from a screenshot of a movie but that image is still there. Then I re-uploaded the image as Image:Thorabirch.jpg to change the rationale and licence (I know it would be probably better to use the older page but it already had a discussion about its licence) to promophoto. I based it on Image:Menasuvari.jpg for Mena Suvari. However, that image was again removed and just asked that person why Mena Suvari and Kevin Spacey still have images based on the rationale of those two removals.

Please let me know what it's going on with this because I don't know what I do wrong. Also, if someone can upload the photo for that article with a proper rationale please do. I'm tired of this :/ --fs 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Request assistance with Physics page[edit]

Hi there - I have been an editor for a year, and now have a pretty decent level of competence on most of the areas of WP, but this one may require a few more experienced editors to help out. Frankly the page is decreasing in quality over time - it gets hit by a lot of very high edit sessions (the record currently stands at 87 in 6 hours by 1 user on the 30th of June). Some editors are editing in good faith, some may not be - it is difficult to tell, but whatever happens the wiki process has broken down and is not working out here, as the page has no focus and editors are simply trying to write the article they want rather than the article that consensus reaches. As the last 500 edits show the article is attracting a lot of back and forth, what I would term "sandpit" editing (i.e. folks just editing in a nav bar because they think it would be better without putting it to talk or even coming up with a mock for others to comment on). The problem of a very large number of socks also exists, certainly Srleffler identified a chain of them at the end of june - and it appears that another new one has started editing again tonight. There are some legitimate editors working on the article as well, but basically the page is a mess, and a culture of "editing the article to read what I want" exists rather than "editing the article to reach consensus". I haven't edited in any new content personally, only tried to keep the article inside some sort of lines of standard. Trying to direct folks to talk seems to have little impact - the sole aim is just to have the article reading as they wish - for example, User:Phusis, who reged today, made a whole host of edits to the article - which I reverted and directed him/her to talk about the issues) then he/she just blanked reverted back with absolutely no discussion. It is a poor show - and it is unfortunately down to a lack of understanding amongst some of these editors about the process of reaching consensus (and it appears that understanding is not forthcoming either). Other experienced editors comments are welcomed, because here we have an article on one of the fundamental sciences and it is on its way to becoming a train wreck. SFC9394 20:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise, and wish wiser heads would advise on what to do with those editors who try to get their way by stubborn persistance rather than reasoned discourse. Obviously, a reasoned discussion takes much longer than repeated reverting to whatever a person likes, and a few such people can easily drive better but busier editors to give up on an article. Rick Norwood 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly sympathize with this problem. Entropy is an on-going issue at Wikipedia, and I hate it when I come back to a decently-edited page only to find it has been turned into fertilizer. That's one reason why I enjoy working on obscure, non-controversial topics: there tends to be less of that sort of B.S., if only because changes are less frequent and can be addressed easily :-) The only thing I've found that seems to help reduce the entropy is the use of in-line citations based on solid, reputable sources. (E.g. the {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} templates.) When key facts are well-presented and anchored with citations, I think there is less motivation to tamper with the text. — RJH (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies - it seems it is a problem without any real solutions - perhaps a move to a 1.0 "live / frozen" system (if it ever happens) would go someway to solving these issues, otherwise there isn't much any single editor can do to stop this quality decrease. SFC9394 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

2 image use questions[edit]

Hello, I wasn't sure if this was the right place to ask this, but...

1. When submitting an image containing people to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons (something that's hard to avoid when taking pictures in popular tourism areas), is it necessary to obtain a model release from the people in the photo?

2. Is there some sort of policy or guideline regarding how many images can or should be used within an article?

I don't plan on submitting anything soon, but it's good to know the pertinent rules beforehand.

Thanks. --Tachikoma 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Well, I don't know for sure, but in general, I think that in public places, where an image is of a place or thing, and people happen to be around, then no, model releases aren't important. Its one of those things you accept when you are in a public location. Think about images that appear on the news. Also, even images of individuals don't need model releases if the article is about that person (and is factual, hence, not constituting libel). What would our biographies have if famous people had to approve every image posted?

2. There isn't a particular 'rule', but there are guidelines. Here is the general concept I use: A point to every image. Just think to yourself, "Does this image specifically relate to an important part of this article?" If no, then don't add it. If yes, then ask, "Is there another image that also relates to this important part of the article?" If so, then only keep the best of the two images. I tend to lean in the 'more images is good' direction, but I temper that by requiring that every image relate very specifically to a part of the article. "General" images, like you'd see in a gallery, aren't appropriate.

The type of article is also important. An article like pigment needs lots of images, because we are discussing color, and the history of the use of color. Images are natural. A science article may only have one or two photos, but maybe several diagrams. And an article on literature may not need a single article. A picture of the hometown of an author wouldn't help with article comprehension, so no need to add it. Just use your best judgement. (famous last words). Phidauex 07:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with changes[edit]

Hi

I seemed to have committed an error when I published my fathers page. I did not put a capital letter on his last name at the header of the wiki, I cant seem to find a way to edit this part.

I also want to upload images to the main page but I can only get a link to it. How do i put the picture on the main page. If you check out the page for Ignacio Villarreal you can see what I am talking about.

Thanls

Jose

See WP:Move to rename/move the page to the correct name. For uploading and linking pictures, see Wikipedia:Images -- Lost 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about Interlanguage Links[edit]

I only just added an Interlanguage Link in “Chinese style name” but the two paragraphs in it, “Zi” and “Hao” , have separate articles in Chinese Wikipedia so I added two Interlanguage Links to Chinese in it and that looks so strange.

Sadly, I found I can’t add any display names in Interlanguage Links to tell everybody the differences in this two links.

Excuse me, how can I do for this case advisably? Thanks.

P.S. I'm sorry for that I speak poor English so maybe I had some abusage above.--風痕影 03:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some (inconclusive) discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Interlanguage links. Although it is not mentioned there, it strikes me that a very appropriate solution would be to have the interlanguage link lead to a disambiguation page (and if one does not exist, then create one). By the way, your English is MUCH better than my Chinese. Please do not be concerned about "abusage". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you very much. Because “Zi” and “Hao” are not ambiguities in Chinese, I had not created a disambiguation page in Chinese Wikipedia. I chose another way: added an Interlanguage Link to “zh:Zi” page on “Chinese style name”. Additionally, there is no link to “zh:Hao” on “zh:Zi” page so I added a “See Also” link on “zh:Zi”.--風痕影 10:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Stormtrooper effect[edit]

An anonymous user insists on reverting a very questionable "equation" section which makes no sense at all. His excuse for restoring it is that most of the article is speculation anyway--which to some extent is true, but this section is a lot worse than the rest. What can I do about this aside from constantly reverting the section? Ken Arromdee 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Get a consensus against him, and insist on citations. If he can't get them, it stays out, if he can, well, it's not speculation any more is it? --tjstrf 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Template Query[edit]

I was thinking of going straight to Templates for Deletion for this but I thought I'd come here first for some ideas from people.... Currently there are a number of flag templates for the British Isles/United Kingdom, namely  United Kingdom  United Kingdom  Great Britain  Great Britain and Northern Ireland and  Great Britain. In order this the templates are UK, GBR, GBR2, GBR3 and GBR4.


I cannot understand the need for the {{UK}} template if {{GBR}} comes up with the same flag and same country name. Could I put {{UK}} under the deletion process or would this cause so much merry Hell that it is best to leave things as be?

Further, there is no need as far as I can see for the GBR2 template as the flag is outdated by literaly hundreds of years. GBR4 is perfectly accurate. Again, would this cause too much hassle were it put through the deletion process?

Cheers doktorb wordsdeeds 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

First, use the template talk pages to discuss the issue with those created and use the templates -- there might be reasons you're not seeing. (You might need to use the template history to find and contact the creators and invite them to the discussion.) If that doesn't work, I'd bring them all to TfD at once and ask which ones should be merged/deleted. — Catherine\talk 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Proxying Wikipedia or mirror through URL-rewriting proxy server[edit]

I'm a university library sys admin. We started providing access to Wikipedia through a URL-rewriting proxy server, EZproxy (I can explain if you really want to know why we did this). I now realise that when our users edit articles, any URLs in the article from domains that we proxy will be rewritten. Among the options I'm considering (stop proxying; continue proxying but ask users not to edit via the proxy) is proxying a read-only mirror instead. I'm not aware there is an official read-only version (is there?). Are there good quality (license-compliant; kept up to date; etc) mirrors that might be suitable? I have seen the lists at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks but don't have time to work through them. Alternatively, any other suggestions for getting around this problem? Is there some other Wikipedia facility that might help? Thanks. UAucklandLibr 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to post this to the wikitech-l mailing list or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'm not sure if any of the developers frequent this page. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, Answers.com is usually the most professional and up-to-date mirror. — Catherine\talk 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

goverment involvement in business[edit]

how are goverments involved in business

That question will have different specific answers depending on what specific government(s) you're asking about, but in general, regulation and taxation are probably the largest areas of involvement. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for archiving[edit]

In an edit summary several days ago I asked someone to archive Talk:List of groups referred to as cults, but no one did.

Page length is approaching 200 Kb. It is lengthy to load the page over dialup. Trying to preview and save before one's comment becomes obsolete is difficult. A mysterious 3-edit summary lag didn't help good faith any. There are ongoing active discussions among contentious and loquatious editors as well as highly opinionated readers, so the archiving should be (inconveniently?) done during the hours of lowest talk activity. The page has been archived previously, so following the previous archive pattern should help with method choice.

I just don't have the computing power and bandwidth to tackle this job. Can someone with more local resources do this archiving while following the guidelines at WP:ARCHIVE? Milo 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, everything near enough a week old has been archived. Steve block Talk 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
wow, thanks, that was amazingly fast. Speaking of (fan) cults, from my distant perspective you seem like a Spock/Data brainiac sitting at a Star Trek class computing console. <hehe> Milo 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with a page move[edit]

Hi I am new to wikipedia and I just created an the article Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. However, I created it without the correct capitalization (every first letter except 'a' should be capitalized), and my user account is too new to move the page to the one with the correct spelling. Could some kind wikipedian do me a favor and move it to reflect the accurate capitalization? Thanks. Decafpenguin 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, it looks OK to me. Can you type the name as a link in the form you think it should appear? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking for an article that vanished[edit]

I wrote an article States List Puzzle back in 2004. I just noticed that it's vanished. It's a red link and there's no record of any history to the article which I obviously know existed for some time. I assume if was deleted but I'd like to know why. How did this article disappear and how can I track down why somebody de-created it if its history was also de-created. MK2 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Kungfuadam deleted it on May 24. You can ask why on their talk page. --π! 07:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Click the link "deletion log" at States List Puzzle to see why it was deleted. The cryptic answer is "closing prod 24 May 2006" which means that your article was submitted for deletion according to the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process and after several days with no contesting, was deleted. Deco 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.5[edit]

Wikipedia 0.5 is accepting nominations. See WP:V0.5N. Please nominate any important and well written articles you find; you can also review the nominations by signing up here.Eyu100 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki help[edit]

Hi, I've been thinking I would like to be able to do this for a while now. I was wondering, how do I upload a wikipedia image to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks in advance - Jack (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a suitable medium for this project?[edit]

I have some plans for trying to initiate a collaborative translation project, and I wonder whether Wikipedia is a suitable medium to provide the technical and internet framework for this project.

The project involves translation from Thai into English of certain books by the Thai Buddhist monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu was a very famous monk who had exceptionally deep insight into the meaning of the Buddhist texts in the Theravada Buddhist Canon, and how we can apply them to our everyday lives to overcome suffering. He made his own tranlations from Pali into Thai of the original teachings of the Buddha, and there is a collection of books which he wrote about various subjects, explaining the teachings of the Buddha in the Buddha's own words by quoting from relevant discourses which he has translated into Thai.

One might well say: "Why translate into English a translation from Pali into Thai - it is better to translate directly from Pali into English" - but that would miss the point. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's translations are very exceptional because of the deep insight he has into the deeper meaning of the text, which is not clear from a mere linguistic analysis of the text. Modern translations from Pali into English of many of the texts already exist, but they lack the deep insight of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and sometimes completely misconstrue the true meaning.

There are around 60 volumes or so of these books (averaging about 500 pages each), so this is not a small project! However even if we can translate just one volume that would be a tremendously valuable contribution because so far none of them have been translated into English. I intend to start with one specific volume - on Paticca Samuppada (dependent origination), which is probably one of the most important books in the series.

I have in mind several stages for the process:

a) Scanning the pages.

b) Converting the scanned pages into digital text in Thai characters (very valuable in its own right!).

c) Proof-reading and correcting the digitised Thai text, with peer evaluation.

d) Compiling databases of OCR workers, which keep track of the accuracy and reliability of each contributor and their peer ratings.

e) Translating digitised texts from Thai into English, section by section.

f) Correlating digitised Thai texts with the English translations, together with the digitised Pali originals (which are already available), using professional translation management software such as Trados or equivalents (offline), with dictionaries.

g) Proof-reading and correcting the Thai-English translations, with peer evaluation.

h) Compiling databases of translations and translators, which keep track of the accuracy and reliability of each contributor and their peer ratings (together with (d).

i) Publication (in the public domain) of the finalised translations.

j) Further revisions of the translations as necessary.

I wonder to what extent the mechanisms and systems of Wikipedia could be harnessed to support the collaboration and communication side of this project? Would it be feasible to manage the project as a Wikipedia colaboration project? Most of the core OCR and translation workers would probably come from outside Wikipedia (mostly from existing organisations of followers of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu from around the world), but Wikipedia could also be a medium through which other contributors could learn about the project and add their contributions.

A few extra comments are in order:

1) The project would have to be run with a high degree of autonomy.

2) Editing access would have to be limited. Allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to have hands-on editing access would be a complete no-go.

3) I could make available webspace for hosting the project, but do not have the technical or systems know-how for setting up the project.

Constructive comments would be welcome on either the suitability of Wikipedia as a foundation for this project, or on technical aspects of how to use Wikipedia technology to facilitate the sharing of contributions from many people around the world and the systems of peer evaluation.

With metta Bhante Medhayo

In a word, "NO". As source material, it's not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, Wikisource or WikiBooks might be possible repositories for the final product.
As for the translation project itself, there are a number of possible ways to organize a collaborative effort such as this. I'm not sure if there's a version of WikiMedia software that allows restricting access. One possible mechanism for organizing the collaborative effort would be one or more Yahoo groups. Perhaps other people can suggest better mechanisms.
Good luck.
--Richard 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The MediaWiki software that drives this site might be useful; it can be restricted so only people you choose can edit. A project that does similar things to what you are doing though is the Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreading project at http://pgdp.net/ . Their site does not state if their software is available for reuse, but you could always ask them of course.
Tinus 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Bhante Medhayo,
This is the sort of project that you could use a specialist Wikia for. I would caution you against trying to distribute translation though, because people might translate things differently from one another, making the porject inconsistent.
Metta
Tom Michael - Mostly Zen Baby tao.jpg (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross-Entropy Method[edit]

There's an article about the "Cross-Entropy Method" at User:Cross-Entropy Method (as a user page). I'm a bit confused as to what to do.

Tinus 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly belongs in mainspace and should be moved to Cross-Entropy Method. I'm assuming that it was created in user space by accident. If so, then it's a pretty non-controversial move that either you or I could make. The only confounding thing is that, because it's in user space, we should ask the user in question if it's OK to do so. I have left a message to that effect on the user's talk page. Unless there is an objection expressed in the next day or two, one of us should make the move.

--Richard 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It could be the user is perfecting the article in user space before moving it to article space. I've done that sort of thing before... --Rehcsif 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
However, it's weird that the person doing this created a user account with the same name as the article and the creation and editing of the article is the only thing this user has done. It smells fishy to me but I can't figure out what the motivation for doing this is so I canonly assume good faith.
--Richard 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Template including both upper infobox and footer navigation bar[edit]

Is it possible to have one template incorporate both an infobox (top-right) and a navigation bar (footer)?

I'd think you'd be able to do it with CSS on the infobar, but I'm not entirely sure how. Has anyone done it before?

The template I'm working on is Template:Continuum mechanics.

Thanks,

--cfp 12:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although it would be technically possible to use CSS positioning attributes to create a footer from the same template that displays an infobox, I highly recommend you not do this. Please eschew obfuscation. Note that the current version of your template, although it is vertically arranged in the position one might normally find an infobox is functionally a navigation bar (as opposed to a "true" infobox which contains summary facts about the topic). I'd just make it a navigation bar (footer) and call it good. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I know my infobox isn't really an infobox... There are quite a few examples of infoboxes being used in this way so I don't think it's entirely crazy. The reason I don't want it as a footer is that all pages containing that infobox should also have the physics-footer navibox at the bottom. My attempts at CSS having failed (and it seeming like a bad idea, as you said, anyway), I've just been adding two templates to each page, which is marginally annoying but hardly the end of the world. (^_^)
BTW: I asked the same question on IRC and they suggested I posted a bug report (feature request) about my proposed way of implementing this (with two new tags "header" and "footer" defining text that should be placed at the top/bottom respectively). If you're interested the bug report is at: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6729 --cfp 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Takako Nishizaki[edit]

Takako Nishizaki appears to be a notable classical violinist, but the (recently-created) article is a copy of her bio at the Naxos website. There's no copyright notice on that page - so is this a copyright violation?

I've come across a few cases similar to this one and would appreciate advice. What is the copyright status of an artist's promotional material, in general? Many artists and their labels would probably be happy for the material to be distributed in this way, since it promotes the artist. However, the writing often has the usual POV problems. Supposing the subject is notable and it's not a copyright violation, should I remove the material (often gutting the article and leaving it as a stub) or just add the appropriate cleanup tags? --Grace 07:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything is automatically copyrighted unless the originator states otherwise - so yes, it's a copyvio. I've deleted it. Artists and their agents may be happy to see their promotional material redistributed, but they would probably not be happy to see it edited mercilessly and re-redistributed without their approval- so anything posted to Wikipedia needs to be released under the GFDL, which can't be done as long as it's copyrighted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! --Grace 10:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a guide on the actual process of writing templates?[edit]

See subject. I spent about 20 minutes puttering around help to no avail, and a similar amount of time looking at the actual code of existing templates. I could probably figure it out based on a comparison of existing templates and their effects, but what I really need is a simple how-to guide on making the things.

Additionally, if anyone's interested, what I'm attempting to construct is a template (name undecided) which will inform users that:

  1. an article is part of a broader category or class of articles, and should be kept consistant with other articles within the category.
  2. that issues which would apply to the article set as a whole should be brought up on the main page of the category.

I believe this would be useful in a variety of applications (e.g. articles on characters in a series) where discussion will often take place on one of the individual pages that should have occurred on the main page. Ideally, it would utilize field input, but that will not be necessary for the "beta" version.

Many thanks to anyone who can assist me. --tjstrf 04:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you've already perused Help:Template and that was no help, then try contacting one of our experts at Category:User template coder. I would offer help myself, but I failed Templates 101. Good luck.--Kchase T 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You can also request templates at Wikipedia:Requested templates -- Lost 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

password won't reset[edit]

I am user Desertsky85450 but I have lost my password, and the 'email new password' button on the login page is not sending me a new one. Could some one please get it to send me a new password, or my old one? 216.161.151.90 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the answer to your request is "No". I think you need to create a new username if you can neither remember your password nor receive the e-mailed new one.
--Richard 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Check out [[15]]. The hardest part is probably convincing someone that it's really your account. --Rehcsif 05:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have two introductions on an article an one really needs deleting can someone help me?[edit]

I am only new to wiki and this is my first crack at an article (brockenhurst college), i tried replacing the first introduction a did but it went wrong two introductions merged and now i can not find the edit link to fix this problem. it is the very first introduction that needs deleting so later can be added sections that are more specific about Brockenhurst College.

Hi, its quite easy to edit it. Just click on the edit this page tab at the top and remove whatever you want to. I could it for you but I am not sure what needs to be removed. If you can just tell me the first and the last few words, I will delete that para -- Lost 11:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok thanks, i just wasn't looking in the correct place (JLM 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

What needs references and what doesn't?[edit]

Another editor recently added the {{citation needed}} tag to the parts of the Charles Durning article regarding his WWII service. I provided several references that convinced this editor that it was the truth. He also added the {{citation needed}} to the portion of the article about his 1990 Tony Award. I provided that also, but feel that it isn't needed since Tony Awards, like Oscars and Emmys, are quite well known and could be verified quite easily. Does every recipient of a Tony Award need to have a reference verifying that it is really true? I mean where does it end? For instance, if someone put this tag on the Otis R. Bowen article where it says he was formerly Governor of Indiana, or a Medical Doctor, would we need to show references for that? --rogerd 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You must already be aware of the policy of WP:V. Some things that may seem obvious to you, may not be so obvious to other users. Its generally best to provide good solid references especially to those sections that may be disputed -- Lost 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
yes, that is exactly my point. Who can dispute that Durning won the Tony award? --rogerd 13:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be vastly differing opinions on this subject. Some feel everything must be cited, preferably with footnotes. See my laments above regarding the Shockwave article. The fact that Shockwave was a rollercoaster at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, IL is equally verifyable as your Tony awards, but people said I was in the wrong for contesting the proliferation of fact tags, even though they were done in bad faith as witnessed by the anonymous editor's submit comments... --Rehcsif 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It just makes for a much better article if it's sourced he won the tony award. I don't know anything about Charles Durning, and I know very little about the Tony Awards. If it's so obvious, then wouldn't it be very easy to source it? The reader of an article shouldn't have to verify something (even if it's obvious) the article self should provide a source. Garion96 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Requests for citation where someone reasonably doubts a bit of information are appropriate. But quite frequently, a request for citation is a passive-aggressive editing technique used in an attempt to exclude information that someone realizes is true but has a personal agenda against including. Clearly not all requests for citations are the same. I, for one, think it's a little silly to provide a citation for each Tony Award winner in their article when the Tony Award article has a link to their (presumably authoritative) database. - Nunh-huh 19:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The {{fact}} template can definitely be used too aggressively. But in this case I still think a citation wouldn't be a bad thing. I think an article should not be dependent on another article concerning sources. If, for some reason, I would doubt the accuracy of Charles Durning winning a tony award, I wouldn't want to go to the Tony Awards article to see if it really is true. If the article on tony awards has a source, simply use the same source on the Charles Durning one. Garion96 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with that at all. An excessive number of notes is not good. Wikipedians should show restraint in adding and requesting cititations, just as the editors of professional publications do. Athenaeum 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a template for explaining lack of notability?[edit]

It would be useful to have a template for saying, nicely, "Your article about a non notable band/company/group/game mod/fictional character/parking lot was deleted from Wikipedia. To understand Wikipedia's rules for notability, please read WP:VAIN...". The idea is to have something to put on a new user's talk page so they don't feel so bad when their first article is quickly deleted. Sometimes I get plaintive messages on my talk page, asking "What did I do wrong"? Do we have something for this? --John Nagle 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate templates can be found at Template:TestTemplates, second section, second row. Cheers!--Kchase T 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Need some other eyes on this/Possible libel?[edit]

Checking out the talk page of the {{hoax}}-tagged Joseph Katz makes it sound like this is another Siegenthaleriade: accusations of Soviet collaboration, implications in assasinations, etc. A cursory Googling seems to turn up WpA and its mirrors, and (I'm not trying to PA someone) it was created by an editor banned for personal attacks and disruption. I'd let someone AfD this normally, but it looks too similar to the other Soviet spy for me to feel safe doing so. 68.39.174.238 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've confirmed a (strongly suspected) spy by that name existed, but can't pick up the other details to check them, not without the sources handy. Shimgray | talk | 13:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I was able to quickly call up the article cited at the bottom and the information checks out. Now obviously there are likely multiple people names Joseph Katz (Google Phonebook lists at least 34 living in the state of New York at the moment) so I can see why someone might have gotten suspicious, but it does seem that there was a KGB spymaster named Joseph Katz working in the 1930s and 1940s. I can send a copy of the article to anybody who wants it, just send me an e-mail or leave me a message. The original editor was indeed banned for personal attacks, and I think he indulged in original reseach a little too often (if not outright POV-pushing), but he never outright fabricated things. --Fastfission 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. I wasn't sure, but if two other people can find legit sources to back it up then it sounds legit. 68.39.174.238 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unicodifying[edit]

Someone recently made changes to an article I watch with the explanation "BOT - Unicodifying". What is this? The change was from HTML codification (per www.w3.org) for symbols in logic to symbols that appear to be on a special keyboard. If not everyone can use the symbols, how can they be "Unicode". Amerindianarts 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What page was this? 68.39.174.238 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Conversion.--Amerindianarts 17:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia provides direct support for Unicode characters, please see Help:Special characters. You should at least be able to yank and put the characters in your browser. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone else blanked article I created. Should I revert?[edit]

I joined Wikipedia on 11 February 2006.

I joined to contribute information to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows/movies, to make Wikifriends with common interests, and to improve my writing skills.

However, by June, I realized that I was failing as a Wikipedian. The occasional reverting of anon vandalism was draining me from contributing information, and I was stressed by various issues and conflicts, most notably caused by blocks to User:202.156.6.54.

I am considering leaving Wikipedia. On 5 July 2006, I posted an announcement and my reasons on my talk page. I was also contemplating whether to blank the three articles I created, as they have been mostly untouched by other editors. I will announce my decision whether to leave or not by 25 July 2006, as much depends on whether I can make significant contributions and resolve my conflicts.

One of the articles I wrote was recently blanked by someone else (not by an anon). Since I was considering blanking the article anyway, and I'm considering leaving as well, should I revert the blanking? Or should I wait until 25 July 2006, when I've decided whether to leave or not, to decide whether to revert the blanking?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Relax. Have fun. Don't take things so seriously. If you can't do any of these while doing work on WP, then you probably should leave. I get the idea that you're hoping that a significant number of people are going to beg you to stay. I'm typically not inclined to do that -- I'd rather give a compliment to someone who doesn't fish for it, and I'm unfamiliar with your work. I did read your talk page, and none of these issues sound even moderately unresolvable with a little attitude shift (I do agree that I wish anon edits were not allowed, but is this worth leaving for? Besides, I don't think this is your issue).
As for whether to blank the page -- why would you? Page-blanking is vandalism. I looked at the Google Groups article, for example, and there are many, many edits that you didn't do. Just because you worked on and/or started an article, it isn't yours to "own" -- you signed all rights away when you hit 'submit'. So whether or not to blank is kinda moot -- chances are someone's going to bring it back anyway.
Good luck, I hope you stay and be productive. --Rehcsif 15:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't need people to beg me to stay - I'm just stressed and frustrated. I will stay of my own accord, if the reasons for my leaving are dealt with. That means I can continue to contribute information to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows/movies, and settle the issues that are causing me stress (e.g. the blocks to 202.156.6.54). To do so, I may need a little help from more experienced editors, though I understand an attitude change might be in order. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand the terms of the GFDL, and while others have edited the Google Groups article, most of their changes are cosmetic, while the bulk of the information is still contributed by me. Look at the diff between the last version by me and the current version: [16]. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, whether or not you leave Wikipedia, you cannot withdraw the rights to your work (and we'd be in trouble if every contributor had that option). We do value your contributions and if you leave, we're sorry things didn't work out. I know the politics and bureaucracy can sometimes be frustrating. Deco 15:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have not confirmed my departure yet. I think Wikipedia's a great place, and I'm trying to resolve my issues before confirming my departure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
But others may not blank your pages. And yes if they do so you are entitled to revert. Blanking -- keeping the page, but deleting all or almost of the content -- is never supposed to be done anyways, except in cases where the text is copyrighted. Instead, when appropriate, the entire page gets deleted. Only admins can do that, and there is a process for doing it (for articles, it's WP:AFD, or WP:PROD, or speedy deletion per WP:CSD). If you wrote an article that you, or someone else, feels does not meet encyclopedic standards, well, many of us have done that, especially when new, but it should go through process and not be just blanked. Herostratus 00:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've reverted the blanking. I may list the articles I wrote on AFD. Is reverting one's own edit OK? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The real thing you need to ask yourself is 'why'. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith, but it sounds like you want to "just take your ball and go home". If you feel there are factual, quality, etc. issues with your edits, you can remove them. But others may decide to put them back. They are not really 'your' edits anymore-- they belong to wikipedia. As far as going through AFD, again, why? Do you feel the articles are non-notable and should be in WP? If it's just a quality issue, then a 'cleanup' or similar tag would do the trick. Again, it sounds like you just want to leave and take your work with you, but that's not the way it works. I've got a better idea -- why not stay and continue to contribute? --Rehcsif 03:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I do want to stay and contribute. It's just difficult to, as the occasional reverting of anon vandalism, and the stressful issues/conflicts, and WP:V/WP:NOR are draining me of my stamina to contribute. That's where I'd like to seek help in. Perhaps an appropriate WikiProject would help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Only you can decide if the related stress, etc. is worth it for you. Issues, vandalism, etc. are never going to go completely away. Things may improve, maybe even backslide, but there will always be vandalism and issues that you don't agree with. Should you still stay and contribute? Only you can answer that. If it isn't fun, then why would you? If you can make it fun, then you should stay. You never did address my question about why you're considering blanking, deleting, or otherwise removing your contributions. I'm having a hard time 'reading' you -- on the one hand it sounds like you genuinely want to contribute. On the other, it sounds like you want to prove a point by leaving and taking your contribs with you (which is, 'unfortunately', not possible). --Rehcsif 03:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right that I felt like taking my contributions with me. Of course, I'd rather stay. Reverting vandalism isn't causing me stress. It's just making it difficult for me to focus on contributing information. I think joining an appropriate WikiProject would help there. Based on my contributions, what WikiProjects do you think would suit me? The issues that are causing me stress include some conflicts, particularly blocks to my shared IP, User:202.156.6.54. I was also hoping that by contributing information to articles on my interests, I could make Wikifriends with common interests, though this has failed to materialise. Perhaps a WikiProject could help there as well? If this is settled, over time, I'll learn the ropes of Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the shared IP, I've notified Tim Starling (who maintains the trusted XFF list). If your ISP is providing the necessary headers, you may not have to worry about unintended blocks much longer. — Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Someone told me that WP:BPP has recently been implemented. Is this true? If so, a great source of stress has been relieved, and if I can find a way to make steady contributions, and Wikifriends, I'll definitely stay. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you add Category:Wikipedians in Singapore and Category:Wikipedians interested in TV to your userpage, and check out other who have added the same categories. Getting to know others who are interested in similar areas is a good way to make friends on Wikipedia.-gadfium 06:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Before deciding to leave, I was previously working on my userpage, with projected completion in August. The userpage would contain lots of userboxes for my interests, and if I look for people with similar userboxes, I will probably spot many potential Wikifriends.
In addition, I have also asked User:SuggestBot to recommend me some articles to work on. Fortunately, I have already spotted some tasks for myself. For example: adding Secunia information to articles on web browsers; making Netscape a Good Article after the merger I propose was recently completed; and contributing screenshots and information to the AdventureQuest article. With a torn left leg ligament, I'll probably have time to stay at home working on these articles, although the pain may reduce the quality of my edits.
However, I still consider WikiProjects the best option, because I can make steady contributions to articles of interest, and I will meet Wikifriends who share my interests, so we can collaborate on articles of interest and make them Good Articles. For example, if the SGpedians' Notice Board was turned into WikiProject Singapore, I'd probably find many Wikifriends my age to collaborate on articles of interest. Could you recommend any good WikiProjects, since I work on articles about websites and Singapore TV shows/movies?
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)