User talk:Kam Solusar

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 15:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit^talk on behalf of Kaldari 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the note

about Image:Po'pay-SR-03.jpg. That was posted about 3 years ago and since then a lot of the templates, choices and even rules have changed. I went with your suggestion rather than just removing the image as i have done with hundreds of others because that is a rather rare photo, the statue was only seen by the public for one day, in Po'pay's native pueblo, before going to Washington where it will likely remain indoors for the rest of its life. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Books LLC

A collection of Playboy Photography was copied from the Wikipedia!!! Are you serious? Besides, it's a reference to the book itself, and nothing else. Which part of that poses a problem here? A book was published and it had a publisher. The book was on Hooker, and the publisher was Books LLC. Please check what the reference is about. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It no longer shows up in the section called "references". Rather it's a part of article body now. That should clear our consciences. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aditya_Kabir,

"A collection of Playboy Photography was copied from the Wikipedia!!! Are you serious?" - Of course I'm serious!? Books from "Books LLC" available in onlineshops like amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com are just print-on-demand books created via scripts from Wikipedia articles. They've created thousands, if not tens of thousands, of these books automatically and will only print them if someone orders one from an online shop. See the FAQ on their website: "The book has no author. Who wrote it? All content cam[sic!] from Wikipedia."

Or did you buy the book and can verify that it contains more than copied WP articles? And sorry, but print-on-demand books are not notable enough, especially if their content is just copied 1:1 from free sources like Wikipedia. So they shouldn't be mentioned in articles at all. Otherwise we would need to mention millions of such print-on-demand books in Wikipedia articles, created by various publishers such as "Books LLC", "Icon Group International", "Alphascript Publishing", Betascript Publishing, etc.. by copying Wikipedia content. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? Okay then. If the book is not worth a mention, I'm removing it from the article, and not just the ref. Will that be alright? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. These books are really becoming kind of nuisance for Wikipedia lately, as it's not easy to see where the content comes from and so they keep popping up in all kinds of articles. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I was thinking about buying it, imagine my disappointment if I had bought it, and found I'd actually written it!!! DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Although it sounds kind of cool to have your own articles in book-form standing on the shelf :) But books printed by PediaPress are probably a better way to do this. --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Diesbezüglich

müßte man protokollieren, um welche Artikel es sich handelt und dann prüfen, ob, wenn überhaupt mit vertretbarem Aufwand möglich ist, welche nur per Permanentlink und/oder mit Versionsgeschichte in der Erstversion und/oder Diskussionsseite übernommen wurden. Die tatsächlich importierten Fälle scheinen sich in Grenzen zu halten und könnten hinsichtlich Schöpfungshöhe oder nicht wohl schnell abgehakt werden. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matthias. Die importierten Edits hatte ich heute schon mal überflogen, hab aber nichts Problematisches dabei gesehen. Leider scheint es wohl noch keine Liste aller URVen zu geben, da seine Edits noch gar nicht alle geprüft werden konnten. Hab aber noch keine Zeit (und wenig Lust) gehabt, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI komplett durchzulesen. Beim drüberlesen hab ich mal die ersten paar der dort als URV gelisteten Artikel geprüft. Bei vielen davon scheint es gar keine dt. Artikel zu geben, andere sind relativ eindeutig keine Übersetzungen sondern Eigenleistungen der dt. User. Bei vielen der ersten verlinkten URVen steht auf der Noticeboard-Seite leider nicht dabei, woher der Text kopiert war und die Versionsgeschichten sind schon bereinigt - also recht schwer, da überhaupt auf URVen zu prüfen. Eine kleine URV hab ich IMO aber schonmal gefunden: de:Mark Gorski scheint eine Übersetzung von Mark Gorski zu sein, der wiederum von [1] kopiert wurde. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'll post my message to your German wiki talkpage. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

:o) --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Authority control

I see you've added {{authority control}} templates to several articles, and I read Authority control. At Jack Kevorkian, it was reverted out by another editor here as "unencyclopedic". Perhaps it would help if you explained on your User page what purpose such templates really serve in Wikipedia articles - specifically, how they improve articles. Is there a project keen on disseminating such links everywhere? I have no problem with them, but I guess I'd like them better if they were formatted more like page-bottom banners.--Lexein (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lexein,

thanks for your message. I agree that the template is missing some kind of documentation of its use and purpose. Its purpose is to add metadata to articles (mainly biographies) that is used to identify records about the article's subject in the authority files of national libraries and other similar GLAM organizations. With this metadata, those organizations can add links to Wikipedia articles to their databases and hopefully new tools will be developed for Wikipedia users to access all kinds of catalogues and databases with information about the subjects of the articles in question.

It was imported from the German Wikipedia, where it is already used in over 150,000 articles, but there's no Wikiproject or similar coordinated effort here on the English WP yet. I'll see if I can write up some documentation and explanation for the template. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Any chance that display of {{authority control}} templates could be a bottom banner, or listed on the same line as categories, instead of its current form? Some users object to anything which doesn't look like refs, EL, or bottom banner sections (whatever they're called). --Lexein (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been pretty busy around here, but I'll see if I can write it in the next days. As for the look of the template: I myself prefer the monobook skin version of the template on the German Wikipedia ([2]), which looks like a second row of categories. IMO the current layout doesn't look out of place when it's put right beneath navigation templates, like in Albert Einstein#External links. It could maybe be changed to a traditional navbox style like this:

I'm not opposed to changing the look of the template, but as the template is intended to (and hopefully will) be used in 100,000s of articles, I think this probably needs more input from the wider community. I like the idea behind this template and like supporting it by adding the template to articles (mostly on the German Wikipedia, sometimes also over here), but to be frankly, I'd rather not be "the guy in charge of the template" and its use and look. I'm not really that active here on the English Wikipedia, so I think I'd rather let other editors decide on these matters. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Started a page describing the template and its use: User:Kam Solusar/Authority control, but it still needs some work. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted refs

Thanks for catching the unreliable sources in List of vegetable oils. I don't know how those two got past me. I've replaced them with reliable sources. One very mild suggestion: you might consider tagging references like those as unreliable instead of removing them, because it makes it easier for a subsequent editor to find places in the article that need attention. If nobody happens to notice the removal, there will be places in the article that need a reference but no longer have one. That's a lot harder to find (or even notice) and fix than a tagged reference would be. Waitak (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Waitak. Thanks for the advice. I don't edit much on the English WP and didn't know that templates like {{Verify credibility}} even exist (the German Wikipedia where I edit most doesn't have a lot of such maintenance templates). I'll use them in the future. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk)

Vielen Dank! Waitak (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Alphascript

Thanks for catching that. I listed the book myself (never read it of course), but I was not aware of the issues surrounding it. I'm hoping that one day, the Malvern article will be a FA. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Most editors haven't heard about these books full of copied Wikipedia content yet. Great work with the Malvern article so far, btw.! --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Personensuche toolserver application

I've just added a brief entry here on the Personensuche toolserver application, which I think is really great. I hope something similar can or will be developed for the English Wikipedia. Would you be able to say more at Wikipedia:Biographical metadata about the history of that tool (when first developed) and what exactly it does? I also noticed details further up your talk page about 'authority control' templates. Some of that is related to data on people, isn't it? Maybe you could say something about that as well? Just something brief noting what relevance it has to biographies and how it is used elsewhere and might be (or is being) used here? Carcharoth (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth. I've added some info to the metadata page. Can't say much about the history of the Personensuche tool, but it's been around for quite some time. It really would be great if someone could create something similar for the English WP, but I think maintaining the tool's database takes a lot of time and work. But I'm sure it's creator would be happy to share the code if someone were interested.

The authority control template is currently used mostly on biographical articles here on the Engl. WP, but it's actually intended to be used in all articles that have corresponding entries in authority records. In the German Wikipedia it's also used for all kinds of groups, organizations, index terms, etc.. At the moment, there aren't a lot of instances of people/organizations using the authority record IDs provided on our articles to link or combine our articles with their databases/content. The German National Library uses the PND numbers in biographical articles on the German Wikipedia to add links to the articles to their online database (e.g. [3], the link on the right side). But through the use of BEACON files (meta:BEACON), it's possible for many organizations to map pages about persons on their websites to our biographical articles. The Personensuche tool uses this to link to a variety of other sites on the data sheets for each person.

I'm hoping that more external uses will arise when the template sees a more widespread use on the English WP and developers and the library community see the potential of combining our articles with their databases and collections. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The BEACON stuff is fascinating. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Unique Identifiers

I am one of the members of the new WikiProject Unique Identifiers which was created for the discussion and coordination of all UID related matters. I believe that the German Wikipedia's Access Control has achieved goals similar to ours. Your experience with the German Wikipedia's Access Control project makes you uniquely qualified to help us avoid mistakes.

I invite you to give us your insights. Please join! Thanks, — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Authority control integration

Thanks very much for your comments on the proposal to extend authority control usage. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any feedback gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Eureka

I've reverted you again at Eureka; since you ignored WP:BRD I do not feel compelled to discuss first either. The dab page in both languages disambiguate terms in "Eureka" so clearly they are considered equivalent to "Heureka". What is more, both Wikipedias have "Eureka" as a redirect to "Heureka". One could link the English page to the redirect page to circumvent the rule that linked pages must have exactly matched titles (if there is such a rule) but that would just be putting the user through an unnecessary redirect. If there ever were a case for WP:IAR, this is it.

In any case, I am not really convinced there is such a rule - please link to the relevant guideline. If it is so, what about languages that use diacratics, such as fr:Eurêka? What about languages which don't use the Latin alphabet? Arabic, Russian and Hebrew are all included in the article. Numerous articles have links which are not the same name; for instance carpenter links to de:Zimmerer, id:Tukang kayu, and mr:सुतारकाम. SpinningSpark 23:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark. Sorry, didn't know about WP:BRD yet, I don't edit that much here on the English WP.

Interwiki links on many dab pages are a huge mess, indeed. But Dab pages are basically just lists of things referred to by the same word/term. So why link to pages on other projects that are lists of things referred to by a different word/term? Moon (disambiguation) for example is basically a list of things (places, people, works) called "moon". Why should we link it to lists of things called "Mond" or "Kuu" on other projects? Readers don't need to go to other projects for that, we already have a list of things called "Mond" here at Mond for example.

Help:Interlanguage links#Purpose says "used primarily to link an existing English Wikipedia page to a corresponding page in another language Wikipedia." Corresponding page in this case IMHO means a page that covers the same subject. So our list of things called "Eureka" should link to other lists of things called "Eureka". There's pure interwiki chaos on many dab pages, because many words have several different possible translations in many other languages and dab pages could (and often do) exist for each of those translations. That's why dab pages should only link to other dab pages of the same name.

But I admit that Eureka/Heureka might be a bit of a borderline case, as the difference is only one letter and the page also includes things called "Heureka", so in this case the interwiki chaos is not quite as bad as on some other dab pages. --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that dab pages should only link to the same term. But in this case it is clearly just a variant spelling of the same term as shown by the fi and sv editors using them interchangably. SpinningSpark 06:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I guess I went a little bit overboard with this one. It's not worth argueing a lot over interwiki links. All it needs is one editor on just one other project to change them and some bot will come along and again change the links in all other projects anyway. Sooner or later, interwiki links will be stored on Wikidata anyway and hopefully then we will have a central discussion place for such things to come up with some basic rules for interwiki links and special cases like dab pages. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kam Solusar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kam Solusar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kam Solusar. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of rev 860305470 - Next steps

@Kam Solusar: With regards to the reversion of linking Kantaro: The Sweet Tooth Salaryman and ja:さぼリーマン 飴谷甘太朗, I accept your explanation that they cannot be set as interlanguage links because the English version only covers the TV show, while the Japanese version covers the entire franchise.

What would you recommend as my next step? Ask to have the Japanese article split into a separate TV series version and a manga version? -- Sumghai (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Sumghai:: I don't think the Japanese WP will split the article, as it seems to be standard over there to cram all works (light novels, mangas, books, tv series, OVAs, audio books, video games, etc.) into one long article rather then separate articles. If you want to link the two articles via interwiki links nonetheless, you could do it the old way by adding manual interwiki links to both articles (see Help:Interlanguage links#Local links). --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kam Solusar: - Fair point - perhaps I'll put an interwiki link down in the future. Thanks again! --Sumghai (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)