Hi, I previously hinted about leaving out 2011 for the AFMP and it seems it's having an effect on the ITN (In the News). However, I wouldn't have minded as the entries concerned have gone but I didn't actually expect the events in Libya, Syria and now Ivory Coast to cost the ITN department of the AFMP (April Fool's Main Page) more than four hours of air time. At least they still have four out of five sections of the main page. --Marianian^(talk) 03:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, We're experimenting with the use of HTML lists in navboxes, styled to appear, visually, as horizontal. Please could you check how the test cases render in your screen reader? I'll look for your thoughts on that page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup on Jester, can't believe I missed that one. Besieged (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! I redirected the page of Theodora Palaiologina to Theodora Palaiologina Sinadina because there is a more prominents person with that name but when I try to put text in Theodora Palaiologina it does not appear and the page continues to redirect... Can you fix that problem and make "Theodora Palaiologina" a red link so that I can create the article?

PS: And a quick question I already asked an administrator who seems inactive (I am copying it) - "Greetings! I would like to know whether it is possible to create a second account of mine with which to put categories, templates and links to Bulgaria-related articles? I ask that because it is annoying to see tons of minor edits in my list contributions. That distracts me from monitoring certain things..."

Regards, --Gligan (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer. Best, --Gligan (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Pi on whether to move the article to π. I expressed some concern as to any accessibility problem, but input from someone more familiar with the issues would be helpful.--agr (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Overture on Hebrew Themes

A sound file uploaded by you has been promoted to featured sound status. Your sound file, File:Prokofiev - Advent Chamber Orchestra - Overture on Hebrew Themes.ogg was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate a sound file, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MacMedtalkstalk 21:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I was prepared to do some quick blocking when I loaded up the main page and saw a red link for TFA. I wonder if it was truly necessary to do the history merge today? Jujutacular ^talk 00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's especially important to make sure that an article has its proper attribution when it's high-profile (like when it's on the Main Page). Admittedly it should have been done earlier. However I tried to minimise harm by making sure the article was deleted for the minimum amount of time possible ... I was actually expecting the article to have a longer history than it did. Graham87 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The difference was minimal, but what's done is done. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a small thing: did you know you can set your Preferences //My preferences/Watchlist/Display All edits) -->, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#preftab-5 // so that not just he most recent edit is displayed? Ocaasi ^c 09:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, old habits die hard, though. :-) My own watchlist system works fine for me, as a consistently regular editor ... but I do like Jimbo's idea of pending changes for watchlists, so to speak. Graham87 10:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have used wikipedia for a while now and have been unsure of the best way to cite a page. Is it better to use <ref></ref> and the different forms of the same, or is it better to use the cite button at the top and fill in the popup template?Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have created a first cut at a smart watchlist. Please see User talk:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist.js. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been uploading photos for a few years now to the Wikipedia. Each time, I seek a photo where we have none, or crappy ones, email the photographer to see if they're even remotely interested to give up their copyright status for one of the 2 Creative Commons licenses that are accepted in Wikimedia Commons. Occasionally, I am offered other photos from the photographers, as was true with Tracy Chapman. Considering the state of affairs in so many musicians' biographies (which is my area of interest), with articles that have no references whatsoever, and the photographers, many of whom are either amateurs or super-professionals, I ask most editors to leave their attribution in the caption hopefully until it's time for GA review. It makes the pros feel a little more comfortable (I mean, really, how do they know I'm really a Wikipedian editor), and for the novices, it sort of gives them room to show off for their families and friends. Maybe all this seems silly to folks here, but it generates goodwill and frequently provides us with more photos. Thus far, I estimate that I've uploaded and placed about 1,500 photographs on en.wiki alone (not counting the articles I edit in other languages). Anyway, I'm well aware of the "rules", but a little leeway would be nice. I doubt I'll be able to furnish the BLP articles with photos much longer anyway, since the advent of Wikibooks somehow seems to completely gloss over the reduction (or complete lack of acknowledgement of attribution) of the photos involved once they leave our Wikipedia. I'm not sure how that will play out, as I have limited contact with other editors. I'd be interested in hearing what you think about that. ? I would like to remain on a friendly basis.. I just don't know how to answer potential photographers about why we don't give them credit, as other encyclopedias might do. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, glad to have met you. I'm one of those middle-aged "returning to school" type women, with an impoverished family (both in Brasil and the USA)-- suffice it to say I had little education and none with computers, but after finding so many photos missing, I found my niche here betwixt editing a dozen or so articles at a time, and adding photos, esp. since I have ADD. It's OK! You know, funny, I myself didn't think of the sound bites! HA! But seriously, since I'm just a Wikignome and not an Admin. I never had much faith in going up against public opinion in the Village pump. (Truly, I value the few barnstars I have, if only to keep the newbie editors from reverting my good edits, which is a shame. This photo/sound bite/non-free images issue, I think is critical. When I upload photos, I now try to put the photographer's name IN the file name. Like [[File:David Gilmour standing on his head by John Doe.jpg]] That way, hopefully there's no doubt of the source. Also, if a dozen or more pics come from one source, making a Category in Commons for that person: Category:Kirk Stauffer photos. Any other ideas you might have would be wonderful. I just can't imagine what will happen when all these Wikibooks end up complete. I know for a fact I've uploaded to almost 50% of many of the FA and GA musicians' articles. Has anyone else considered the issue? I am exceedingly careful, because I want this wonderful free online encyclopedia to continue, and it only takes a lawsuit (or 1,500) to bring this crashing to a halt. PS-- thanks for putting back the attribution. That was great!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea that there was a Wikibooks website. What is it? OTOH, I don't know what takes place once a wikibook here is completed. Shankbone implemented the same policy in creating File names? Here in the en.wiki, or in Commons? For example, User:KirkStauffer allowed me to upload a bunch of his (amazing) photos. I began a Category in Commons for his uploads: Kirk Stauffer photo collection in Wikimedia Commons. But to be "safe" from misuse here in en.wiki, I hadn't yet thought of making the photo's fundamental file name include the photographer's name, like this: File:Tracy-Chapman 1988 by Zoran Veselinovic.jpg. By respecting the photographers, I see no harm even if just initially putting their name in the caption until, B-level article. Amateurs can brag about it to family, and pros can possibly gain new customers when people see their work. And, some are curious and even join our ranks- Stauffer is the newest (amongst a dozen others) another byproduct of little kindnesses we can extend. Finally, I want to put in our observations into (at last) [Editing Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical] but don't know how to go about it. Can you find out? You are an Admin., and I am not. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham, approaching Easter I would like you to move Christ lag in Todesbanden to it's redirect Christ lag in Todes Banden, - which (for a reason I don't see) I can't do. The hymn has Todes Banden as two words in de, with Bach, in the original. - Btw "my" Graham has a special day today, celebrating in concert the memory of his father together with 16 bassoonists, players from the Melos Ensemble and his family, - it's on the Main page, Epitaphium. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Done; you couldn't move it because the target page had more than one edit in its history. I've copyedited the Epitaphium article ... sounds interesting! Graham87 15:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for both! Bright Angel was also on the program, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. However I'm not sure about the external links on the Bright Angel article. Point 13 of the "Links normally to be avoided" section of the external links guideline discourages links that aren't directly related to the subject. Graham87 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But they are, on performers and the publisher, who don't (yet) have an article. The quality of the performers should show, and you gave me a good idea how to expand the article (requested for DYK). Epitaphium had an external link for Julie Price until Friday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not related enough ... any external links on the Bright Angel article should ideally be about the work Bright Angel and nothing else. But there are also times when one can just ignore all rules. Graham87 06:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert Francesco to Francis? Just a little research will show articles that say his birth name was Francesco. Did you see his birth certificate? 67.80.144.146 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're blind. :( You know, I never even noticed that on your user page, and I'm so sorry! Anyway, I might try to confront the issue at a later time. Just not right now. Best wishes, 67.80.144.146 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been acting in support of vandalism; please consider reversing yourself.

This discussion on the spelling of the war sets out the issues concerned, including some procedural protests. The protestors went so far as to request it be moved back three days later; this failed to win consensus either. They have continued to edit the article to impose their favorite spelling, inconsistently with the title;

On a personal note: WP:POINT condemns, reasonably, doing things you do not want to happen in order to distupt Wikipedia; I have been doing the opposite. While improving the article, I would like not to be embarrassed by seeing Wikipedia use a spelling unsupported by the sources or by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Graham, if I may step in here: I'll just thank you for countering some pointed editing of the article in question. The case for the en dash is strong. There is no automatic requirement to match the form used in the title; and since the unfortunate move of the article, it has not been possible to achieve consistency using either form. The en dash form accords with other Mex~Am War articles and relevant categories (which are linked within this article), and with the great majority of titles in Wikipedia for wars with similar names. The en dash form also accords with guidelines at WP:MOS, whose interpretation and status are unfortunately disputed on "political" grounds, and in a chaotic, unsystematic fashion.

I'm sorry: you have stepped into a quagmire here, and I hope you will not be inconvenienced by controversy. It would be well to avoid it! Thanks once more, for your preservation of clarity and good order.

Noetica^Tea? 03:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Noetica. Graham87 05:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed your good work with history merges so I wonder if you would mind considering an unusual case.

Shakespeare authorship question (the featured article on the main page for April 23) has had a troubled past with various disputes and an arbcom case, although it is settled now that a few editors are topic banned. Owing to the disruption, the core content for the current article was developed in a sandbox. The contents of the sandbox were copied and pasted into the main article in November 2010. Since then, 18 edits to the sandbox have occurred for various tests.

I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to history merge the sandbox into the article, and whether you would like to do it. A simple history merge would put all edits from the sandbox (1453 edits) into the article. That would include the most recent 18 edits that are not relevant, and I do not know if that would be a problem.

The reason for wanting the history merge is to properly attribute the work done by the major contributors who built the current featured article. Currently, we have the irritating situation that a count of the edits to the article is very misleading because the second most prolific editor is now topic banned, yet almost none of their edits are reflected in the article. A history merge would give a more accurate picture.

Here are some details:

• Article: Shakespeare authorship question
• Sandbox: Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2
• Edit to article which copied in sandbox at 02:29, 4 November 2010: diff
• Sandbox state at 21:33, 3 November 2010 permalink
• Comparing the previous two items (wikitext from article and sandbox) shows that they are identical except that the article includes routine material at the end (navigation, categories, interwikis), and the sandbox includes some header lines describing its purpose: ComparePages

Thanks for any advice (after April 26 is fine!). I will look for any reply here, no need for talkback. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, unfortunately I can't do the history merge in this case because the sandbox edits would naturally overlap with those already in the main article. Therefore the diffs in the page history would be rather confusing. Graham87 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Would that mean it couldn't/shouldn't be done, Graham? It would make a few of the diffs look odd (if editing at the main article continued alongside editing of the sandbox draft), but not to merge them is to lose a lot of the main editors' contribs. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be done, IMO, because of the overlapping edits ... the sandbox edits would be interleved with the article edits in the page history from April to November, so it would look like there was a giant edit war over whether to use the article version or the sandbox version. It would especially seem that way to machines that read histories (not just counting edits, actually trying to figure out how much each editor has contributed to an article). It can be done, in fact it would be relatively easy for me to put the edits from the sandbox page (without the eighteen irrelevant edits) into the main article. The histories would contain overlapping edits, and that would be unacceptable for me.

There is one other solution, but it would require a steward because of the high number of revisions at the main SAQ article. I could move the overlapping revisions (most of which are from October 2010) to a talk subpage and then do the history merge with the sandbox article. I'm sympathetic about the problems with contribution count, and I wish there was a cleaner way to resolve them. This situation would be a perfect candidate for RevisionMove. Graham87 16:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. This is disappointing. I see what you mean about the diffs, but the two outcomes both seem unsatisfactory. If nothing is done, a historian would be able to follow the diffs, yet a topic-banned editor whose contributions have essentially been removed gets second billing. If a merge is done, the content of the featured article will be properly attributed, yet the future historian will find the diffs for that period confusing. It's not one of the most important issues at Wikipedia, but it would be nice if it could be fixed. Do you think a steward may help? Thanks for your time. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it may take a little while because it's a relatively unusual request. Would my solution about excising the overlapping edits be OK, considering this diff between the last revision of the SAQ article before the creation of the sandbox and the first revision of the sandbox]? Are any of the revisions at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft1 relevant, or is it that some of the early revisions at draft2 shouldn't be history merged? If this history merge is to be done, it must be done properly the first time, because there will be no way to reverse it. I've notified Jafeluv (talk · contribs), a steward who helped me with a similar case at Nazism, of this discussion. Graham87 04:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In order to make sure I get the request right, I am starting a discussion at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#Proposed history merge. When that is complete (perhaps 24 hours or so), I will post the result here. Some initial comments: your "this diff" link above was made by the editor who is now topic banned (arbcom endorsement), and Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft1 was intended specifically for that editor to develop a draft to be compared with another draft (Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2) prepared by other editors. Consensus chose the latter (draft2), and that is why I am asking to have it merged. Your "this diff" link would be retained as the first merged-in edit. It's not clear to me exactly where it came from because people were copy/pasting stuff fairly freely during that period, but I believe the new history would not be any worse than the old, and would in fact be better, and provide better attribution. However, I am requesting that editors with more experience in the topic check my understanding, and will report back. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, histmerges get ugly when parallel versions are involved. The Nazism page was broken for me for about 10 minutes after deletion due to the large amount of revisions, so there's a reason why deletion of pages with that many revisions is discouraged. Remember that there are alternatives to histmerging such as listing the authors of the parallel version on the talk page or its subpage and linking to that page from an edit summary. That said, I can perform the deletion if you decide that a histmerge is necessary in this case. Jafeluv (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. The talk page message sounds like a very good idea. I'll perform the necessary steps once agreement is reached on the SAQ talk page. Graham87 10:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge request

The discussion at the article talk has agreed that the proposal should proceed. These are the steps that I believe should be performed (same as proposed on article talk page):

• Extract from article history including revisions to be removed with a few extra before and after is here.
• Full history of draft2 is here.
• Remove 239 revisions from article history (move to a talk subpage): from 19:00, 28 April 2010 to 12:27, 3 November 2010 inclusive.
• Merge 1435 revisions into article from draft2 from: 15:02, 26 April 2010 (page creation) to 21:33, 3 November 2010 inclusive.
• No other edits need to be merged into the article (for example, nothing from draft1).

Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've notified Jafeluv. Graham87 05:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All done, thanks very much to you and Jafeluv—I guess you folk know no fear! Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Son, I don't know how you did it, but that's a great piece of work you and Jafeluv performed just now, and deeply appreciated by all the team, on whose behalf I presume to speak, over at the Shakespeare Authorship Page. Our very best wishes Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Graham87 14:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've been poking at Rules of netball some tonight to fix a few minor citation issues. I've asked a couple of people on Wikipedia IRC channels if they thought the article was to GA status. They all pretty much suggested that the lead needs fixing. Once the lead is fixed, it shouldn't have that many problems getting through. I was wondering if you could help reword the lead. (Or rather, rework Netball#Rules of netball possibly.) Once done, it can be submitted. If we can get a good lead developed that gives a comprehensive idea of the rules, we can plug it back into Netball, which should make it easier the second time around in trying to get an FAC though on Netball. --LauraHale (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries if it takes you a day or two to look at it. :) I can wait to make sure it gets another look before submitting. I'm not in a particular hurry. --LauraHale (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts – is that any better? --RexxS (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much better. I've tweaked it further. Graham87 10:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to add content to User:0! I really appreciated it. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for making me get off my butt and actually write down the info! :-) Graham87 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your details! I would normally not say "solo organ", just "organ", because it's rather normal for the organ to play alone. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right here ... I was being a bit pedantic. Fixed. Graham87 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if you have time perhaps you can offer some suggestions here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#My friend is going blind and needs help with her computer. Cheers! Nil Einne (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Graham87: Noticing you were a participant of Wikiproject Accessibility, and that you were moderately active, I thought I'd ask you how to make a table accessible. I've read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Tables, and Help:Tables. How are the tables at List of Seattle Mariners team records not web accessible, and how do I fix this? Albacore (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham, I don't actually mind if you remove the info altogether from Alan McGee and others. I started reverting the edits because the user was using The Sunday People as a reference for many of the edits, and he's been told not to use tabloid newspapers on several occasions. He's also prone to adding refs which don't match the information, or which have a tenuous link. Then I noticed some were reffed from the BBC, which is a bit more reliable so I reinstated them, but to be honest I'm not convinced the information is entirely necessary as many of them aren't politically active. The People article basically asked "Who are you gonna vote for?" but the answers don't necessarily reflect a political stance as many people are floating voters and vote for whoever they think is the best option at the time. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, thanks. Bots exist to service people, not the other way around.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 29, 2011; 11:56 (UTC)

My apologies for adding almost duplicated information to these 2 articles. I had not noticed that near identical information had already been included. Sir Stanley, talk, 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		This barnstar is for your work in cleaning up the women's sport in Australia articles. Very good work! --LauraHale (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a new section to the discussion for this article.

Talk:LZ77_and_LZ78#This_article_needs_some_corrections

Rcgldr (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

update - I see you added a reply to my talk page and wondered why it was cleared out. If I remember correctly, my discussion page got corrupted (at least it wasn't working with Internet Explorer 8 at the time) and I couldn't figure out how to repair it other than to start a new one. There was only one message and response with someone named crowsnest which is still in my history.

back on topic, I sent some messages to other posters there, but so far no responses. I have worked with both LZ1 and LZ2 data compression schemes, so I noted some corrections or additions that should be added. I'll wait a while for a response.

Rcgldr (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

One major problem we have with renaming categories (at WP:CFD) is that the history is always lost. I was wondering if we could maybe use the "import" tool to make a copy of the history at the category target. I did read your description of how it works; the method would require finding a namespace which has no page by either the category source name nor the target name; "improt"ing it into that namespace; Using the standard Move tool to move the page to the new name in that namespace; "import"ing the page into the category namespace; and deleting the temporary work page used for the move. If you say it's practicle, I intend to ask the community to approve using it, and if they do - have the standard category rename bot (Cydebot) implent it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be practical, but awfully kludgy. Graham87 08:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured sounds was booming with activity in the March/April period, ideally that should be all the time. FS has been a battleground at times, however, it is my hope that that is in the past. I ask you all to reconsider your positions and set aside the differences you may have had with other participants for the good of the project and encyclopedia. Don't let FS become like VP, it is a path that a featured process should traverse. You were sent this message because you are listed at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Contributors or have been a past contributor.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Featured sound candidates at 09:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Three of the nominations you supported at FSC have new (improved) edits for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a new video for consideration at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor, Op. 49 – 4. Finale: Allegro assai appassionato.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am a volunteer at the Brooklyn Museum in New York. The first big and still remarkably popular asset the museum purchased was the complete set of watercolors illustrating 'The Life of Christ' by James Tissot. I am currently working on placing these images into relevant WikiPedia articles. I haven't had any problems until now when I noticed the lock icon at the top of the 'Jesus' page after having an addition of an image was rejected. It makes good sense to me that there be a gatekeeper here. Do I request permission from you to add something? I'm still learning protocol so I'd appreciate any help or guidance. Thank you. WilliamJustinM (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC) WilliamJustinM

I saw you moved an image file on commons. Do you need to be an admin to do this? File:Cadence B.ogg would be well-suited if it were moved to match the naming convention of File:Drum - Cadence A.ogg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you move this file for me?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being so thorough.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Graham. I've had a complaint from a reader who claims to be the uncredited author of the content in the first revision of pSOS, but I can't find any deleted edits there or evidence of a cut'n'paste move. Since you're the old edits guru I wondered if you might have any idea of where these revisions might be hiding (if they do exist)? Mahalo, Skomorokh 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Skomorokh, I have no idea where they would be. There are no relevant results for a case-insensitive search for the title "PSOS" in my complete local copy of the pre-December 2004 deletion log. It's possible (but not likely, given that the MediaWiki software was fairly stable by September 2002 AFAIK) that something funky happened to the first few edits because of the lower-case first letter of the title – see this edit which added a link to the "PSOS" page. Do you know the username or IP address that was used by the person who allegedly made these edits? Graham87 00:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response; the guy initially was certain it was under this account, but as you can see, no deleted edits. I thought they might be at the nostalgia wiki or some such dump/backup. Skomorokh 00:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Graham87. Our tender to write the history of the paralympic movement in Australia is progressing, with an announcement expected towards the end of June. The project page is on Wikiversity evolving into a research space, with the original tender and your letter of support moved to a sub page. We are preparing ourselves for a significant engagement with Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikiquote and Wikibooks, and will need your assistance. Could you get in touch with me on leighblackall AT gmail to discuss this further? Leighblackall (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I got my filemover rights. Now, I am not sure what to do about archive pages like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 101 and others, could you have a look at Pages that link to "File:File-State of the Union Address (January 27, 2010) Barack Obama (WhiteHouse.gov-reedit).ogv" and give me some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I redirected Taíno to Taíno people since the ethnic group article is the primary topic. The disambiguation links are on Taíno (disambiguation) and the Taíno people article has an other uses template linking back to the disambiguation page. I'm well acquainted with one editor's habits of unilaterally, and w/o discussion, moving ethnic groups' articles to "X people" but usually the previous name is then redirected to the "X people" article, unless the ethnic group is not the primary topic (i.e. Waco tribe, Peoria tribe, etc.) Awhile back in WPIPNA we did agree to change "X (tribe)" to "X tribe," but that included correcting double redirects as well.

I'm rather curious to know where the directives for these spontaneous moves are coming from. These's no discussion on the subject from WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups or WP:WikiProject Languages – and it's definitely not coming from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas or WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. This flurry of renaming mainly presents a problem on pages with a great deal of editing activity and traffic, and when the previous goes to a disambiguation page instead of an article. Any information about what's going on behind the scenes would be appreciated. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

WP:FSC has gotten backed up due to limited feedback. Your feedback would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure which is correct. There are times when it is correct to change [[: types. I just changed every single instance I found.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC) I have had a chance to look more closely at name swaps. this is an O.K. [[: file swap. I don't think there are any others that I have done so far other than the one you pointed out that may be a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

preciate! TCO (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Graham87 03:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Except one will only know to reply on your talk page /iff/ they actually happen to read your talk page before replying. Which I didn't. :P So, uh, you probably want to read my reply to you on my talk page. :P (Though personally, I would prefer a conversation to be all in the one place; otherwise reading a conversation involving half a dozen people would get very tedious indeed.) michael (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham87. Yes for the source, i'm working at the Moulin Rouge in Paris, so we are the only who have historic archive ;) And there was a lot of mistakes in the page. Sorry for the srandard format, i'm a newby :) I'v just finish the French page Don't hesitate to contact me, and thanks for your advices — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOULIN ROUGE SA (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good looking out, I suppose, except I made the spelling error in the first place. Please double check things like this before you just change them, especially on something as silly as a typo. DocRocktopus (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stay away from my edits. You pointed out the talk page guidelines to me, but maybe you should be the one checking them again. I haven't violated them, but you have by undoing my edits. DocRocktopus (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to your advice Graham, I just need another one, i'v search in many help page, but i'v not found any response. I'v upload the Moulin Rouge Logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_detoure.png#filehistory), but i don't know how to insert in the infobox of the Moulin Rouge english WP page (like the french version).

Thanks in advance. Best regards.

Moulin Rouge —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Edit : Yes i make this edit, because the informations was totally incorrect. Sorry for the summury, i will do that the next time. Thanks Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOULIN ROUGE SA (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham87, today I have seen you fix a missing signature in a diacritics-related discussion for the second time, so I assume you are following these discussions. I haven't seen you comment yet, and I am interested in your perspective. I searched around for information on how screen readers handle with diacritics, but so far with little success. It's conceivable to me that most screen readers just ignore special letters altogether or do something even less helpful with them. (Of course they should really be fixed in this case.) It's also conceivable that a good screen reader uses diacritics as a hint that a word is in a different language, and then pronounces it in that language. So I have no idea what the implications for accessibility are. Hans Adler 13:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what you are doing with Flip-flop (electronics). Glrx (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please merge the pre-2007-07-07t19:20:51z history of List of common phrases in various languages into User:Christopher Sundita/List of common phrases in various languages or delete the latter because it doesn't attribute the editors? -- Jeandré, 2011-06-30t17:48z

Could you please move the deleted Oscar_and_Ponni_Architects page to my userspace? I will rework the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsswiki (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'm working on:

• User:LauraHale/Australia at the 1960 Summer Paralympics
• User:LauraHale/Australia at the 1976 Summer Paralympics
• User:LauraHale/Australia at the 1998 Winter Paralympics
• User:LauraHale/Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team
• User:LauraHale/Australia men's national goalball team
• User:LauraHale/Australia women's national goalball team

I'd like to get them good enough so they can be moved to the main space and nominated for DYKs. If you get the time, can you try to improve the articles by doing spelling and grammar checks, and wikicode fixing? If you have any content to improve the length, that would also be useful. --LauraHale (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Category:Operas is addeded to all articles on operas, regardless of their sub-cats. See the paragraph on the category page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

OK Thanks for letting me know. Graham87 11:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham Thanks for the advice on protocol. The source I was going from is the score and not someone elses work. But I understand the reasons for your revision. I will check out the Classical Music Project you mentioned where perhaps I can share my work.

Sincerley Karl Drekka A.R.C.T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drekkakarl (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help and the note. This user was vandalising lots of pages (every contribution I checked was vandalism), so rollback was needed; thanks for restoring one that really was productive. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham, I have finished expanding the article. Thank you for copy-editing and for correcting my errors. Unfortunately, the time I have available for editing has been severely reduced due to family circumstances. I intend to tie up a few loose ends here and take a Wikibreak for two or three weeks soon. After I return, I intend to refine the prose and layout of the article, and nominate it for good article status. Thanks again, Quasihuman | Talk 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham, thanks again for your editing, I have started a peer review about the article here, your input would be very welcome. Quasihuman | Talk 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Graham87. Thank you for putting my edits back up that this Nyttend erased. I'm trying to get rid of all the dead red links to pages that don't exist. Also I'm getting rid of personal birthdays that people are posting in the year articles. You know: 1967 - January 12 - Joe Blow was born on this day and he is a REAL AWESOME DUDE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.198.223 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As our resident "nostalgia" expert, can you lend any insight into User talk:Xeno#Recent usurpation request? –xeno^talk 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is it possible to semi-protect the article Walter Bache as it is a featured article? It seems to be attracting a bit of attention. (One IP address in particular is an habitual source of vandalism). Ozdaren (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for updating my User page copy of the image of the support cane with this edit! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Graham87 05:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
a screen reader question: I notice that in Template:NoSpam the image used to represent the "@" character has the image alt text set to " -at- ". It would be helpful to set the alt text to the actual @-character so that copy/pasting a disguised address still works, but I see in the template history that it was explicitly changed to " -at- " to account for screen readers.
Is that really better for screen readers? I would imagine that the @-character is read more or less the same, and that it would make more sense to be read the same way it is in an email address anyway?
Cheers, Amalthea 10:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

fixed. Graham87 13:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Amalthea 18:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Handel's oratorio was expanded, is up for peer review, I supplied some technical background, a (giant) work in progress, structure and the three parts, if you are interested in something on its way, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for thorough reading! Sorry about the TOC, I didn't know that. Is there a way to have it where your reader expects it and still reduce it to level 3, the "scenes", for less "white space"? The movements are linked from the table. You said "the prophecy", but the text has three prophets talk about different aspects, "the" sounds like one person one theme to me? Learning. More to come but there's also real life, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Both Part III and Part I will go to the Main Page today (in that funny order), if you want to look again, I found some interesting sources, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again! That little "a" was not in the Hogwood source, of course it's missing in the grammar, but I was told not to "correct" a source. I leave it as you did it, just a thought. I understand it's from a video, maybe a bit of sloppy speech. Copied from Messiah, perhaps you want to take a look at that as well? (Not my article, but up for peer review, - a nice coincidence with our upcoming concert.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking there. I was mistaken, the source is a PDF dealing with the biblical text, the quote is on page 12, and the "a" is certainly missing there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah Part II expanded, if you want to read more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wild_strawberry BF (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

I finished reading the North Carolina page and noticed that there no references to the Biltmore Estate. I didn't see a comment section and am not well versed enough to edit the page. I came across your name on the contributors page. I'm not sure of your level of involvement but wanted to express a possible oversight to one of the state's important landmarks.

Thank you!

YoQueSe (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)YoQueSe

Thank you for deleting a link to a non commercial site that I added to the concerto's page. You certainly do not want someone who earned a PhD contributing to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genedelisa (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you noticed it, but just in case you didn't, Akmalhaziq made some more contributions, which all look to me like text book sections. Do you suggest I just revert them all? This is too far off my field, so I feel uncomfortable. Yet it is obvious this material should not remain. --Muhandes (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted them all. I actually didn't check the user's other contribs as I normally do because I was quite tired thanks to a cold. I've asked for another opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Interesting edits by a new user. Graham87 03:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)