The external link on Modernista! links to the company's website. But if you click on the link, their website just links back to the Wikipedia article. to me, this isn't a valid link, so I removed it, but it keeps getting re-added. Could I get a second opinion? Corvus cornix_talk 03:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The website is designed to display the referring site when linked. Try clicking on the first link on Google 24.34.187.178 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The site also contains a navigation system that will redirect users to other pages within the same frame. Are you seeing this navigation menu in the top left corner? 24.34.187.178 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave it out because no-one should link to websites that terrible, but maybe I hate frames too much. Algebraist 13:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Very constructive. Thank you. 24.34.187.178 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

At Santonian the content after the theropod section won't display, even though the code is there. Can anyone help me with this? No, the comment tag isn't used in the code. Everything in the editing field looks normal. I'm flummoxed. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This problem is always and without fail caused by an unclosed <ref> tag. I see Leolaursen has fixed it already. Algebraist 13:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone give very basic instructions on how to edit images using an external browser. I have been to all the help pages, and I can't understand them. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks! - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 16:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I tripped over this article while doing some work with AWB and couldn't shake the feeling that it might be a candidate for AfD. It has {{update}} and {{Inappropriate tone}}, no references, and the whole thing seems a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Can someone who's more familiar with the deletion process take a gander at it and comment? Thanks! Haus^Talk 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reads like an advert to me. Good candidate for discussion at WP:AFD. And don't forget, no shame in taking an article to AFD if you doubt its credibility as long as you have good justification to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! I will take it to AfD. Haus^Talk 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a question of the greatest significance, but it's bothering me: Why on Earth is one particular line of my userboxes, in the wikitable, pushing one userbox to the next line? It looks bad, obviously. I've tried moving different boxes around, to no avail. Can anybody fix or, failing that, explain? WWB (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone, other than myself has added pages to my watchlist. I isn't pages that I could have added inadvertently. No-one else has access to my computer, so it hasn't been added that way. Can anyone think of why this has happened?

The sites that are now being watched are: Hurricane Katrina, PS3, Final Fantaxy XIII still hasn't come out yet!!! GRAWP ANGRY!...!, GRAWP SMASH!..!, GRAWP EAT TOO MUCH BEANS, HAVE GASS[sic]. MAKE HURRICANE, MY BAD. HAGGER? (this one is repeated often but with ever increasing '?'), LEMONPARTY MAKES ME HARD, Rubeus Hagrid, World War V: Grawp vs. Wikif*gs

Can anyone suggest what I should do?

The first response, of course, is to change your password immediately. Password-guessing has succeeded here before, with nasty consequences. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your account hasn't been compromised. Some other pages on your watchlist were the target of pagemove vandalism, and when a page is moved, it adds the new name to your watchlist while leaving the old name on it as well. Mr.Z-man 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Creepy clearly needs reorganization. It looks as if it was constructed in good faith by someone who does not know how a cat works. (It's a manually constructed list of links and the actual cat has no members.) I've tried to tag it for attention, but the link in the tag automatically points to the "Creepy" talk page (i.e. the comic) and not the cat talk page. Is that a bug in the tag, or am I missing something? Are there special tags for cats? If so, I can't seem to find them. Anjouli (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a problem in the template, in that it doesn't add in the right namespace ("Category:") when it autonames the talk page. However, there is {{cleancat}} which does the trick for categories. I've dropped that on there, explained how categorizing is normally done, and also noted that the category is likely redundant with Category:Paranormal. --MASEM 13:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Is there a list of cat tags like {{cleancat}}? I should be learning these things. Ok, found it! Anjouli (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is tagging cats any easier than herding them? Or perhaps belling them :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch :) Anjouli (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

how do you write "What will it take for you to know that I am God" in aramaic?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Watercolorartist1 (talk • contribs)

Please repost your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. This page is for questions about using and navigating Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Which WikiProjects are well known for high quality A class reviews?

You might want to pose this question at the Wikiproject discussion page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a layman's guide to Templates anywhere? Many of them seem incredibly complex and I need to understand them more before I edit Template:Singles to fix a classic skin problem. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Start at Help:Template. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course look in the "Templates" section of the editor's index to Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ta -- SGBailey (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has two or more sets of references, one of them in the body of the text, which I've unsuccessfully tried to unify. Anyone: help, please? P.S. Making one last attempt, but please check it out anyway. Thank you, Shir-El too 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Failed: don't know how to sort it out, because there seems to be conflicting programming. Thank you again, Shir-El too 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a "cite book" template that had a ref tag before and after (which is normal), except that the ending ref tag was <ref/> rather than </ref>. I wouldn't have thought that the software would distort the article as much as it did (and the way that it did because of this error (I would have thought it would have ignored the malformed ending ref tag, which would have meant the footnote would have swallowed a lot of text after it - very easy to diagnose in that case), but obviously it did - perhaps the new parser? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posting to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries

Template:Catalan language has been tagged for speedy deletion, using a template that (as I understand it) is supposed to indicate what should be used instead; no template is indicated to be used instead. I had some back and forth with User:MZMcBride, who tagged it, but I'm afraid that all that revealed is that he and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye.

I haven't been working in Catalan language and culture lately, but this template was once quite heavily used. We created it because there were articles where {{Catalan-speaking world}} was arguably too extensive. Not to put too fine a point on it, Spanish nationalists objected (reasonably, I think) to articles about topics like phonology linking (via that template) to articles about Catalan government agencies, Christmas traditions, etc.. I suspect that what has happened over time someone (probably a Catalan nationalist) has put {{Catalan-speaking world}} back on the contentious articles, and that the template that is now proposed for deletion might be more appropriate on those articles.

But, since he doesn't even say what template he considers to be an acceptable substitute, I feel like I'm wrestling with a fog. Perhaps someone else can do a better job of sorting this out. - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

62.169.204.60 (talk · contribs) and 62.169.204.59 (talk · contribs), presumably the same person, are adding rather intense personal opinion into articles. They resolve to "ELLINIKI-XENODOCHIAKI-GR". Can anybody tell me if that's an ISP, or something else? Corvus cornix_talk 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

According to http://samspade.org/whois/62.169.204.60 they fall in the same IP range. It looks like its a Greek concern, so I assume the GR = Greece. ELLINIKI XENODOCHIAKI doesn't translate through an online Greek translator, so its probably a proper noun. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the Greek part, but I'm curious as to whether this is a private company or an ISP which shouldn't be long-term blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Elliniki is Greek. I think xenodochiaki means something like hospitality, but I'm not sure. Hopefully a Greek speaker will turn up soon. Algebraist 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I came across FTR (bus), which is using Template:Infobox Bus transit. On every page using that infobox, the included picture was huge (obscuring the rest of the page). As a temporary measure I have removed the image from the template, but I don't know how to fix it properly. Please could someone fix it or tell me how to? guiltyspark (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Barnstars format. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The reason that the image appears so large is that the image size is currently being specified as "250px". Combine that with the "px" hardcoded into the template and you get "250pxpx". As you can see on the thread I linked above, any image that has "pxpx" for its size specification now displays at full size. The fix here: remove the "px" from the image size on the article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See United States presidential election, 2004#References, note number 35. --zenohockey (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If a contentious issue relating to an article is discussed by 5 editors, of which 3 agree with a proposed change, 1 is adamantly opposed, and 1 takes an unclear position, can that be considered a consensus for change? If not, is there another way than RFC to attempt to reach a resolution? The article in question, which is locked, already underwent a lame RFC that didn't go anywhere, and has another hanging RFC on which only one user (me) commented. (How are article RFCs supposed to reach closure anyway? The page on RFCs does not mention this except that a bot will remove the link from the list after 30 days.)  --Lambiam 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not exist with three for, one against, and one unclear. Consensus is "agreement", not a vote. An editor could try asking for a third opinion. What's the contentious change? There are notice boards for most stuff now, so maybe a neutral listing on one of the boards asking for more eyes might be useful. Could the article be part of some project? An editor could add an article to the project cat, then put a neutral post on the project cat talk page asking for more eyes. It also depends why the 1 is opposed; are they quoting five pillars, or policy, or guidelines, or an essay, or just "I don't / do like it"? Because that would make a difference. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue has finally been resolved after a 15-day debate. It was whether the article Faith Freedom International could state for a fact that "FFI was founded by Ali Sina, the pseudonym of an Iranian ex-Muslim", or (the contentious change) needed to ascribe this to a source, by prefixing it with "According to the website,".  --Lambiam 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More cites is always handy with contentious stuff. If the article is saying: FFI was founded by Ali Sina.^{[citation needed]} Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an Iranian ex-Muslim.^{[citation needed]} then there doesn't seem to be much problem. If the article is saying: FFI was founded by Ali Sina.^{[citation needed]} According to "this website" Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an Iranian ex-Muslim.^{[citation needed]} then I guess you need to decide whether "this website" is reliable, and whether the fact that they say he's an ex-Muslim and he's using a pseudonym is relevant. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting last night, every time I've tried to add new content to a my user page, talk page, etc.; my User page design, i.e. {{User:Mind_meal/User page design}}, goes way out of whack and the images expand to full size. I don't know why this is happening, and as such I had to remove my template from User:Mind_meal/Articles_I've_created. Unless I find a way to fix this, i'll have to remove it from all pages altogether. Anyone knowledgeable, please help. Thanks (Mind meal (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

See WP:PXPX. Remove "px" from the image sizes (and leave it at just the numbers), and things will be okay. нмŵוτнτ 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am trying to find some sort of image which could be used for the newly renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises which could be placed on the project's banner, without any luck so far. Would there be any way to combine images which convey radio, TV, movies, print, and maybe live theatre in the same image, maybe with, for instance, a picture including a radio, TV, book, and maybe ticket, or showing a multimedia case holding CDs, DVDs, and the like? John Carter (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration and Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search on a person and my USER TALK page came up on google listing all my conversations that were on my page. Is that allowed? I thought it was only for wikipedia people who have accounts. I don't want people to just be able to google my talk page. If I delete my account, will my user Talk page disappear too or am I forever in the google search???? RingPOPmom (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, all the current versions of pages on Wikipedia are indexed by search engines. As Wikipedia pages tend to be highly ranked, those results tend to float to the top of search results.

As for your question, there is no way to "delete your account". All substantive contributions by editors must appear in page histories to conform with the GFDL license under which the site runs. The good news is that search engines only index current revisions of pages. If you wish to remove key words, I recommend editing the page to remove sections. This is considered somewhat antisocial on the site, though not explicitly forbidden, so please then post to your talk page with a link to the diff of your removal and an explanation such as "Content removed due to privacy concerns". The archived page, which remains in your history, no longer causes uncomfortable search results, while users visiting your page are clearly informed that there is 'hidden' content that they are free to investigate if they wish, so everyone should be moderately happy. - BanyanTree 11:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. RingPOPmom (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent VP discussion about the possibility of preventing the indexing of user space pages, but as is often the case, it led nowhere. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On a practical level, it seems like google doesn't crawl through these pages very often. When I've removed personal information in the past, google still shows it for six weeks or more. Darkspots (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We are going through possible pages for the 2008/9 Schools DVD but the year pages (1750-2008) we would like to include seem to have a high number of errors (e.g. dates versus articles on the subject, signature graffiti). If anyone has some time to go through some years and check them now would be a great time for them to do it. --BozMo talk 12:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to have a script that would put a "+" sign next to items on my watchlist, that I could click to remove them. It disappeared and I've been making some changes to my monobook, so could someone point me to the script again? I didnt see it at the script listing page. MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooh I want that script! Such a pain to have to open articles one by one in order to to unwatch them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Could it be user:js/watchlist?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Score! Thanks MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the images in my userpage NavBar are not displaying correctly? - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The images in the NavBar? - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing which has User Talk E-mail Contributions &c.? Yup. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What do I do? - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 21:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, not sure. Clear your cache. Bounce your browser. I've purged the page, in case that might help. Wait for better advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone might be able to help if you explained exactly what the problem is, and what browser you're using. Everything's fine on my Firefox, and though IE mangles your logo, it does nothing to the navbar icons. Algebraist 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you said what browser (and version) you are using and provided a screenshot, we might be able to provide better help. "Not displaying correctly" could mean a lot of things. Mr.Z-man 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The pages look different on Firefox and Internet Explorer 7 but I don't know which "version" is "correct" nor where the offending code is located. x42bn6 Talk Mess 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:BJBot notifies all editors who have contributed to an article if and when that article is nominated for deletion. I couldn't find any documentation to the bot, nor does the bot approval discussion mention this function, but I feel that this is a serious violation of WP:CANVASS (yes, I know it's only a guideline, but it has wide community consensus). I'd like to find out how others feel about this or if I'm overreacting. Disclosure: as you probably guessed, I AfD'd an article and that's how I found out. Dorftrottel (complain) 08:57, March 28, 2008

It is my understanding that canvassing is generally considered a problem only when it is intentionally targeted at people likely to lean a specific direction on the subject (or, conversely, indiscriminate spamming of unrelated forums). So the real question is whether the bot is improving the AfDs, or excessively biasing them, or possibly just generating talkpage spam. Personally, it's my experience that more participants (note that I mean actual participants, not just "Opinion. Because I said so. --~~~~" ) in a deletion discussion usually gives better results.

Bots running unapproved tasks is of course another issue. --erachima formerly tjstrf 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This bot is approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for Approval/BJBot 4. It should only send to 'significant editors of the article'. I think he was tweaking the code recently to prevent it being sent to too many people.-- maelgwn - talk 09:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)The task is approved (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BJBot 4). As far as WP:CANVASS goes, I'd be a lot more inclined to be unhappy with it, say, if it only informed the supports, or, said things like "PLEASE HELP DELETE THIS ARTICLE", etc. Anyhow, that's my $0.02. SQL^{Query me!} 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're over-reacting. It seems eminently sensible to inform those with an interest in the article that the article is up for deletion, and it informs but does not canvass. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Dorftrottel (ask) 10:41, March 28, 2008

No problem. And sorry if it seems like you're being jumped on here, that wasn't our intention. --erachima formerly tjstrf 11:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not! I'm well aware that I'm sometimes too quick to judge according to my own set of assumptions and beliefs, so I appreciate all the responses to help me put it into community context. Dorftrottel (canvass) 11:25, March 28, 2008

Hello,

I wanted to research a music group called Unison. It is local group here in Dallas, TX. I know that they have recorded album with the infamous Abraham Quintanilla. I tried to do a websearch and found information on them or even album snippets. I found some information, however I did not find anything on Widipedia. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.180.114.199 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference desk is probably a better place to ask. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

208.162.162.126 has been causing some commotion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes. I'm all for differences of opinion but this anonymous user stepped over the line when they edited the nomination text of the AFD to support their position. Can this user be banned for this?--Rtphokie (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They can if they are appropriately warned for their disruption. It's a possible WP:SPA. As of right now, I'd just revert and ignore. If multiple meatpuppets spring up I'd take it to WP:ANI to get some admin eyes on the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

As a new user, I was just wondering if there were any special resources for research like academic databases: PubMed, JSTOR, or EBSCO?

Thank You, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bplum (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 March 2008 Darkspots (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You could try at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, in particular the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

After all this time on Wikipedia I still do not know how to deal with them. For example, I know that one of the diffs below is the correct why to do a diff and one is not in terms of reporting or trying to get help for this problem. Could you tell me which?

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to bring your concerns to WP:ANI or WP:WQT and address this there. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)}

Thanks for the suggestion but I know those do no good. The best thing to do is desert an article which is what I will do here. I know you mean well. So thank you. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse - the middle of the three examples you listed is the correct format. But the question is very odd - are you trying to create these by hand? To get the URL for a diff, you simply (a) go to the history tab, (b) find the edit (row) that you want a diff for, (c) click the link labeled "last" in that row (on the far left), and (d) copy the resulting URL. (You can also do a diff for two or more consecutive edits; in that case, for step (c), you would select the first and last edits, using the radio buttons, and then click the "compare selected versions" button). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, will someone please help me. There is someone from the USA by the name of Dave Huffman laying claim to the name "The Foundations" who keeps inserting his "legal claim" into the article. To the best of my knowlege, there are only two people who "own" the name in the UK - Clem Curtis & The Foundations, and Colin Young & The New Foundations. Will someone please advise. Pat Pending (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this might be a US law versus UK law type issue ... neither jurisdiction can bind the other. That said, I agree that the person adding the US claim is misusing wikipedia. I've deleted a section on trademark ownership (complete with shouty captal letters) and will look at the article again this evening, probably to shorten it and try to prevent it being a battleground. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This person is not "laying claim" to "The Foundations" name but has legally owned the name and all performance rights to "The Foundations" in the US since the mid 70's. This was obtained when both Clem Curtis and Colin Young left the group after breaking ties with their management company in 1970. Both left the group under their own free will to pursue other projects. All of the other "original" UK members of the group also returned home and gave up any rights to "The Foundations" name at that time. I really appreciate you ignoring the legal aspects of this discussion. I have been performing with and recording with the group legally longer that any of your so called "original" members. This is my last statement on Wikipedia as I have learned that this website is a total farce not at all interested in the true facts and they are as follows:

Clem Curtis left the group even before Buttercup was recorded. Colin Young left the group shortly after. The group did not disband in 1970 as stated but was reorganized in the US and has been recording and performing ever since. Believe what you wish but there are apparently three "Foundations". One owned by Clem Curtis? One owned by Dave Huffman One owned by Colin Young?

The question marks are there due to the fact that I have not checked to make sure that they have legal rights in England but I'm assuming that they do.

You seem to be willing to accept the English groups but not the American group that has been in legal existence longer that either of the British groups. That is your God given right to hide your head in the sand and ignore the facts but it is my God given legal right to state the true facts and you, Sir have taken that right from me. Hope you're satisfied. I'm through trying to have the facts stated correctly on Wikipedia.

Dave Huffman The Foundations US www.thefoundations.us

Hi I'd like to change my name. How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Istanbulmike (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please place a request here for your username to be changed. Terra 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article Major Alan G. Rogers presents some interesting issues. Help from any experience admin would be appreciated. Remember (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What interesting issues are you referring to, and why do you need an administrator's intervention? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that the article requires a revamping, rewrite, or some improvement, you may tag the article with various Wikipedia:templates to alert other editors. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would question whether the article is notable in the first place. He appears to be "notable" because he died in Iraq, which isn't really notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Unless something else can be found to justify keeping the article, it should be deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This could be a tough one. For being one of 4,000 to die in Iraq he's getting an awful lot of ink - in places like the Washington Post, which tends to make my ears perk. The question here, I suppose, is whether an article can be developed that explains his notability, and what it is - is he notable for his work in Iraq and the two Bronze Stars? Is he notable for being identified as a gay serviceperson, as some of the cited links in the article mention - and why, is a question on that end. I think a deeper reading of the sources and some hunting around would be necessary before deciding on notability, but with the Post singling him out for at least two stories, there might be something there. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just completed a major overhaul of the aforementioned article. Comments, suggestions, additions, deletions or corrections are welcome.--Robapalooza (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people are great at adding content to articles, but perhaps not so great at understanding WP policy, and not so great at interacting with some WP policy wonks. Is there a project to provide assistance to such people? Dan Beale-Cocks 08:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mentorship, for instance, currently being merged into Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Oddly, we do not have a WP:Protection from policy wonks --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EA is also a good place to get advice, though on a case by case basis rather than ongoing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone posted on my talk page (actually above my formal talk page) [4] requesting that my talk page not be archived. It is posted where the background color is so it is hard to find. I do not think the message with interfere with the bot that does the archiving - at least I hope not. It seems like a form of vandalism. Is is O.K. to remove that posting? Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Users can remove posts from their talk page as they please, see Wikipedia:USER#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A little WP:STALKish no? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost. If it continues and becomes disruptive I'd take it to WP:ANI. It's very premature now. The editor made a request, Mattisse can choose to honor it or not. Personally, I wouldn't honor such a request as edits never disappear from Wikipedia altogether. Seems like the user just had an issue with some of the edits. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi can someone give me some guidance? An editor involved in a mediation cabal case is using multiple IP addresses and refuses to sign posts. This obviously makes it very difficult to keep track of discussions. Can someone give me advice on how to encourage this user to sign posts and register a username because my requests in the past have been ignored. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If your messages are ignored and you really want to remedy the problem you have little choice but to break out {{unsigned}}. It shouldn't take too long with the page history opened in a new window.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please head over to this page and change the name of it? I don't know how to. It says it's a list of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge but has somehow become a list of encyclopedias by language, which is what the title of the page should really be.

Gnossie (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Paul and I'm looking for the best way to contact Sysops, Administrators and Bureaucrats. ZeroNEXT.org will be a place for everyone with knowledge and skill to make our stay on this planet sustainable. There is a huge need for us to share our knowledge and quickly win the battle with Global Warming. Specifically we need assistance with migrating basic science pages from Wikipedia, establishing and administering editorial and neutrality guidelines. I hope we can open a dialog before my posting expires. My email is on the front page of the site.

We don't do that. Sorry. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

timestamps for bot 03:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 03:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have a tool for finding the longest (in bytes) sequences of edits by a single contibutor in an article, as well as group of articles (either selected by myself or being in a certain category), with a possibility of ranking by an article or group, contributor, date and length. Rapidly reverted and minor edits should be excluded. I see reporting and arranging recent scientific discoveries in my possible personal digest as the obvious first purpose of this tool. --Quellem (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I'm not really sure I understand what you are envisioning. The page history tool can maybe be of help, though it doesn't show bytes. Do you mean a tool that would scroll through the database looking for the largest edits to any articles as measured against the entire pool of editors at Wikipedia, or a tool that would show who contributed the most unreverted bytes of data to a particular article that you would plug into the tool? The former seems very unlikely, but the latter should be possible. Maybe the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests could help you. Or maybe I'm completely missing you as I can't see how any of this could relate to "reporting and arranging recent scientific discoveries." I may not be the only one who isn't sure what you mean based on this post. Can you maybe clarify?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wppagehiststat and Rchiststat (this second one is only for German Wikipedia, though both abbreviatures appear sehr Deutsch) are both suffering from editocentrism and incompleteness from my perfectionist point of view. I am not interested in quantity of edits, but in volume of change in bytes to an article in a period of time, that can contain any number of edits. This data change is a true indicator of a person's labour, not quantity of edits (this does not apply to Wikignomes, but it is not in their habit to supply Wikipedia with information that can really be used elsewhere). Rapidly reverted edits, however, must be excluded, as they are sign of vandalism, which is of no interest.

Rchiststat shows page edits and user contributions (alas, conveyed in edits) depending on date, but only lower range can be set, and upper range is just 'today'. Wppagehiststat does the same not for all the recent articles, but only for one. There must be four variables chosen by an enquirer at least: name of article, byte change, name of contributor and period of time, and possibly only then quantity of edits. Countervandalic measures may be implemented later, since vandals rarely spoil science articles, which are my main focus. I am interested, well, not just in recent discoveries, but in sorting any science ideas that appear on the pages of Wikipedia for (Wikipedia's) first time. Rate of their emergence in what has become the main andor the most easily accessable depositary of knowledge and ideas, not mere descriptions, can tell me the true rate of progress in different areas, since I do not dare and have no facilities to compare and compile all the necessary journals and magazines. --Quellem (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey all. Whilst trawling through wikipedia i cam across the Featured sound page. I noticed that there was a significant lack of regular participation in this process. At the moment there are only 15 audio rerecording that have reached featured Status and I was wondering whether it would be possible to get more involvement from people interested in music and general audio recordings so that the best audio on wikipedia can be truly appreciated. I hope to you participating on the page more often and that a greater community consensus can be formed here. Seddon69 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I was having problems finding the person/persons responsible for doing the work on the page about a former Democratic governor of Illinois Adlai Stevenson. Where do I look to find the author/authors of this article? I am doing this to suggest a topic of this article to them so they may look into and if the references seem to check out then they may post the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jke28 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can click the "history" button at the top of the article. It's next to "edit this page". You can page through the history. Just to warn you, it can be tough to figure out who makes substantial contributions and who just deals with vandalism or formatting issues. A much better idea is to leave a comment on Talk:Adlai Stevenson. Just go to that discussion page and click the plus (+) button at the top. You can type in a new section header and your proposed topic. But you can edit the article yourself as well. Good luck! Darkspots (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How/when does a stub article become a regular article? I filled out the following item, having seen the film and spoken with the director: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_vs._Al-Arian I wondered when it would move out of the stub category and what difference that would make in terms of probable hits, etc. I am new to this so please forgive any greenness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LANYA07 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can remove the stub tag yourself whenever you feel that the article has a certain depth, see Wikipedia:Stub for the offical policy. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines for some guidelines on how to organize film articles. The stub template has probably no influence on the number of hits, it is more intended to be a help for editors to find articles that need expansion. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to get some opinions regarding some questionable contributions by user Linkinaha (talk · contribs). In particular, this one which adds numerous dubious or remotely relevant categories to the Paris Hilton page. I'm inclined to roll back all of this user's edits, but am not sure. Several other of this user's edits have already been rolled back. What do the Wiki experts think? Thanks. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably made in good faith - however, a lot of those are just redundant. There's no reason to have extraneous categories. I would roll back with an edit summary explaining why you did so and make a note on the discussion page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've reverted the Paris Hilton edits, but left other user contributions intact. I also discovered an existing discussion related to the issue. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was working on getting Halo: Contact Harvest up to FA-class, and the only thing its really missing is reviews. I've been scouring the web, not finding much, but I think Publisher's Weekly has one archived on their site; the issue is, I can't read it. Does someone subscribe to the magazine who can fetch the review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is probably a much better place to post. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I see how many edits I have made to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeeter (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Under "my preferences" > "user profile" tab, you can see your total number of edits. Additionally, you can use the tool here for more information, though this will not show edits that have been deleted. Gwguffey (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This counter is a lot faster if you just want the raw number of edits someone has made and not any other stats. Hut 8.5 10:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran across Atenea26's place while perusing recent changes. It looks like a user page. If it is, shouldn't it be in user space? --Silverhand^Talk 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This falls under WP:CSD#R2. You can read about how to handle pages like this there. I've deleted these article/redirects. MECU≈talk 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to put a test barnstar on wikipedia. now, I know the Barnstar is someone else's work, so what do I do!? Reply soon on my talkpage!--Editor510 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PS apologies if this is the wrong page to ask on. Please do not just say, "You should really have gone to ----". I need help!

Help is needed to develop an "image cleanup month" (June). The goal is to "Educate, cleanup and move images here at Wikipedia". You don't need to be an expert or knowledgeable about images here to help. Need folks who can write well, copyedit, design connections/templates, organize, group, communicate, have connections to users to help advertise (once the month starts) or just want to help in any other capacity. Not knowing about images would be helpful as we can test our pages on you. Being knowledgeable you can help write the content. See the project central location at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group#Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month (June) and dive right in to help. MECU≈talk 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to fix up a mostly negative stub article, Fred Malek, but I cannot seem to make the citations work. I tried two slightly different templates from here but neither work. These edits are here and here. Can anyone tell me where I am going wrong? --Loudon clear (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears as though you're attempting to use a citation format that the article isn't currently utilizing. Try WP:FOOTNOTE. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I figured out I could put REF tags around it, and it would work. I will study the footnote guidelines for the future. --Loudon clear (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some opinions relating to these edits. Should they edited to correct for poor english and spelling, or should they be rolled back as spam? Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I just realized someone else deleted the questionable material even before I posted this question. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been editting blog and noted that one thing the article needs is more images/enlivening. It would be nice to be able to include screenshots of various blog pages, e.g., that of Ellen Simonetti. I draw a blank as to the licensing issue associated with that, or if it is even o.k. There is this "fair use" option, which I sort of grasp, but not really... Does the use of a screenshot of someone's blog to be included in the article on blog constitute "fair use"?

So I write for advice. If we can answer this question, and come up with a standard licensing/fair use statement for screenshots of blogs that would allow such images to be included in the article (or if you have other suggestions...), that would be great, 'cause then we can include a number of interesting screenshots. I posted an inquiry on the talk page for blog on this, but got no response. Perhaps reply there? Thanks so much, Bdushaw (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It constitutes fair use if you can come up with a rationale that sounds reasonable, e.g. "screenshots enliven" is probably right out.

Here's a couple steps. First, figure out the blog's license. Look at the blog itself for licensing information. If the blog is under a free license such as public domain, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, it can be used on Wikipedia without a fair use claim. If you can't find an explicit license release, you must assume that all rights are reserved. Second, upload the image with a {{Non-free web screenshot}} tag. Third, you must add a rationale (per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline) for each use, itemizing why you think the image can be used as fair use. A lot of people get confused about who is asserting free use at this point; you, as the uploader and editor, are asserting a fair use claim, not the community or the site. Fourth, add the image to the pages for which you have asserted fair use.

The caveat is that fair use becomes less reasonable the more it is used, especially if there are freely licensed alternatives. For example, having multiple 'general' screenshots of the same site might raise questions. In the case of a page like blog, one would have to be very clear about what each screenshot uniquely adds to the page, to avoid it becoming a battle of spammers seeking to have their site portrayed as "the blog". There is already a freely licensed image on that page, so it would be an uphill climb to convince editors that a fair use image merits inclusion. - BanyanTree 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally this sounds like something that is just going to end up being abused for self-promotion. If a screenshot of a blog is going to be provided, perhaps a mock blog, or even just a template for a blog might be better.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see how that can happen; hopefully we can avoid that. I've added a screenshot for Simonetti's blog to the blog article to see what happens - in this case, the image is directly related to the article text, and IMO the image seems informative. It seems to me essential that for this to work the screenshot has to be related to the text, as opposed to allowing any ole blog screenshot. Random blog screenshots would not qualify as "fair use", I don't believe, insofar as I understand that notion, and a blog author can't/shouldn't upload images of his own blog for conflict of interest. I'll let the Simonetti screenshot percolate there for a while to see what happens. Thanks for the helpful discussion above. (In the mean time, I've run across this completely horrible article: Royaldutchshellplc.com...that certainly needs help.) Bdushaw (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone exercises the Right to Vanish, as I did by changing my username (please don't mention it here if you know it), then is it against the policy for someone to go against my wishes by exposing that name on a different page even after I specifically asked that it not be exposed? What happened was that my old userpage popped up on a page, and I removed it, explaining that I didn't want it to be there in the edit summary, and another user had the nerve to revert that edit and say "Why don't you just speedy it?" That may be a good idea, but isn't it common sense to not be that obnoxious and disrespectful, or is it just me? –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 06:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those vague areas I've tried to address before, but there never seems to be the consensus to do it. WP:RTV is a guideline, so its def not binding like a policy. And even that guideline only applies to those leaving the project altogether, not just a rename. So I guess this falls under WP:DICK, of not outing another user for no good reason. Try pinging User talk:Keilana, I think she's had some experience in this field. MBisanz ^talk 06:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think claiming to vanish gives you any "rights", you're almost certainly mistaken. That said, people shouldn't generally be trying to "out" someone who doesn't want that. If this is really a privacy concern, why draw any attention to it at all? Friday (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I said nothing about rights except for the name, right to vanish. It's just common courtesy to not be an a**hole to other users. And about bringing attention, what attention am I bringing? The attention for other users to answer my question? –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 17:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The major consideration is whether or not you put a "tainted" User name in the past so that you could start fresh, but then continued with the same behavior which caused you to abandon the original account. In that case, I think it's certainly proper to have your previous behavior reported and discussed. If such is not the case, then it would depend on the circumstances. Corvus cornix_talk 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't use my previous account badly, it's just that my previous name was very personal. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well'n, that should be fine. But as for {I redact the name}... 68.101.123.219 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)