User talk:Mattbr/Archive 1

Olympic medal record
Competitor for Brazil
Men’s Football

Welcome to Mattbr's Talk Page Archive 1!
March 2006 – June 2007
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page.

Archives: March 2006 – June 2007 • July 2007 – November 2009

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbr/Archive_1.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Mattbr30, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Arts[edit]

Hello Mattbr30, I noticed you were working on "Master of Arts" at WP:DPL at the same time I was, so I wanted to run a proposal by you. I don't know about your findings, but I'm seeing that the overwhelming number of links should point to Master of Arts (postgraduate). If that's truly the case, then

"Master of Arts" should become a redirect to "Master of Arts (postgraduate)"
"Master of Arts (postgraduate)" should have one line saying "see Master of Arts (disambiguation) for other uses"
"Master of Arts (disambiguation)" should have all of the text pasted from the presently-namee "Master of Arts"

Let me know what you think. - Draeco 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Draeco:

Hello Draeco, I'm not sure on the usual course of action in these cases as I am fairly new to all this! The majority of the links are for postgraduate, but I have come accross several for Oxbridge and Scotland. If the current disambiguation page were to be redirected, I think the header would need to be clearer on the postgrad page as people may assume a MA is a postgraduate degree and not update links, possibly with:

This article is about the postgraduate degree. For the undergraduate degree from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, see Master of Arts (Oxbridge), or from the ancient universities of Scotland and the University of Dundee, see Master of Arts (Scotland).

This does seem quite long, and I think for clarity it may be best leaving it as it is. Do other people have any thoughts? Mattbr30 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What say let's go to WP:POLLS and get a few more opinions. - Draeco 19:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll begun and discussion moved to Talk:Master of Arts#Poll proposal. - Draeco 19:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Olympic-rings.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Olympic-rings.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 2[edit]

Hi. I see you reverted that page using popups, but you actually vandalized it. Also, that user did not vandalize the page. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I shall be more careful in future. Thank you for reverting my change. mattbr³⁰ 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hey. Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Regards. SteveO 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. They did it again and left you a mesage this time! mattbr³⁰ 16:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I've got a pretty good idea of who it is. Let's just say we had a little run-in a while back and he came off worst... ;-) Cheers again. SteveO 20:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leprosy article vandalised[edit]

Hello Mattbr30,

I'm doing some reseach on Leprosy and noticed some vandalism at the beginning of the article on it in Wikipedia to which you contributed. I tried to see if I could fix it but didn't know how and wanted to let you know!

Thanks so much for contributing (all?) or part of the article,

Best Regards, Mike —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.248.39.51 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I was patroling for vandalism and just happed to pick it up first. I'm afraid that's all I have contributed to the article and I hope you found the information useful. Thanks for letting me know about more vandalism, it has been cleared up now. mattbr³⁰ 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk page[edit]

I actually saw the MfD, wanted to close it, didn't remember the right templates, closed the window and did something else, and then forgot about it. Sorry. Anyway, "orphaned talk page" is speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G8, so next time you come across a page like this, you can just tag it with {{db-talk}}. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Competitor country template[edit]

Hi Tom, thanks for your comment at regarding adding the country for a competitor. I have created a test version at User:Mattbr/Sandbox if you would like to have a look, and let me know what you think. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I'm very concerned with the coding here, as I'm a big advocate of WP:AUM. I mean, that's why we did the medal infobox like this in the first place, with the MedalTop and MedalBottom templates. You did a great job on the coding there, and I'm wondering if maybe there is a way to get the best of both worlds. My question is this:

Is there a way to create, say, an {{addNOC}} template, such that when you subst: it, then the resulting text is itself a template with parameters?

For example, say you have page Ronaldo. When we add your template to his existing infobox, we get

{{MedalTop}}
{{MedalNOC   | BRA | 1996}}
{{MedalSport | Men’s [[Football at the Summer Olympics|Football]]}}
{{MedalBronze| [[1996 Summer Olympics|Atlanta 1996]]|Team Competition}}
{{MedalBottom}}

I'd like to instead code this

{{MedalTop}}
{{subst:addNOC| BRA | 1996}}
{{MedalSport  | Men’s [[Football at the Summer Olympics|Football]]}}
{{MedalBronze | [[1996 Summer Olympics|Atlanta 1996]]|Team Competition}}
{{MedalBottom}}

And then when it gets saved, the resulting code in the Ronaldo article shows like this:

{{MedalTop}}
{{MedalNOC   | Brazil | Flag of Brazil.svg}}
{{MedalSport | Men’s [[Football at the Summer Olympics|Football]]}}
{{MedalBronze| [[1996 Summer Olympics|Atlanta 1996]]|Team Competition}}
{{MedalBottom}}

This way, the meta-templates are only called for the first save, and from then on, it is a single-layer template. Because the only reason that you have coded it your way is just to automate things, so that while coding, we don't have to remember which flag was Brazil using back in 1996, etc. Does this make any sense to you? I'm not that great at explaining this sort of thing :o\ tiZom_(2¢) 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I understand what you are saying and, with my template, I'm not sure if your suggestion is possible because substing pastes the whole template and not just the results. The only other option I can think of at the moment (unless the flags were not included, but I would prefer not to) would be to have a template for each country, but this would create a large number of templates to manage, which I would also prefer not to have. I will have a think about it further and see if I can come up with something else. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

supercilliousness[edit]

I've added a citation. It's now fully wiki-fied. So stop being so self-righteous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.65.214 (talk • contribs) 16.50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for reverting your edit, this was due to two further successive edits from your IP address being unhelpful contributions. I have extended your edit to make the link accessible in the article. mattbr³⁰ 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must protest your removal of my additions to the andromeda episodes page. You see, not only is it infact truthful that Andromeda has 7 seasons (Do no beleive the lies and propaganda that say otherwise) but that Ryan is, infact gay. If you require proof I do have pictures, however they are of adult nature, so please only request them if you're 18+

Category:British MPs[edit]

You may be intersted in this: Uniltateral subdivision of British/United Kingdom/Scottish constituencies --BrownHairedGirl 09:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewood Country Club[edit]

Dear Mattbr30, I think you may have helped fix my citing of sources on another on of my articles and I was hoping you could do the same for Edgewood Country Club. Like the last time, I tried to keep track by numbering each. If you can help, that would be very cool. hanks Jeeps2009 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeeps2009, I have changed the style of references on the article as per your request, I hope that is how you wanted it! The method I used uses the ref tags, which is explained further at Wikipedia:Footnotes. I also made a couple of other changes while I was there (changing the tables and removing parent categories of categories already included), which you are quite welcome to change back or alter if you want. Hope that helps, mattbr³⁰ 11:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame[edit]

Why did you make List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame into two coloums? I don't see that there was any agreement on the talkpage of that article to do this, though it has been discussed a little. John Anderson 07:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I made the change (which you are welcome to revert) to reduce the scrolling needed to reach letters further down the alphabet and to reduce the waste of space, unaware that there was a discussion about the format of the page. On that discussion (which I have now seen), I think that adding more information would be a good idea to make the list more encyclopaedic. mattbr³⁰ 12:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll revert it (like you said was OK on my talk page) when I start to implement the ideas of the discussion. What's your opinion on those ideas, BTW? John Anderson 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list should be alphabetical with the category of star, year of award and the address. I'm not sure the nationality of the person is needed as this can be found from the main article. I don't think adding a show/hide bar is a good idea either. As a side note, I am working through the list to add the category to articles that don't have it already and checking the official website before I add it, but there are some names which are not on the official site but are on the list, such as Aaron Carter and Adam Sandler, is the website definative in these cases? mattbr³⁰ 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know I would rather trust the official website than the list here, unless I had acctually seen a certain star on the Walk of Fame myself (which I haven't, I've never been to California). John Anderson 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medalbox[edit]

Is there a page somewherethat document this family of templates? Circeus 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the {{MedalTop}} family of templates, which are probably best described on Template talk:MedalTop, although some of it is a little outdated. mattbr³⁰ 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just FYI, "gracefully" is correctly spelled with 2 "ells".[edit]

r b-j 21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas comes early for RegExTypoFix users[edit]

^{Yeah, all you "regular users" not signed up on the mailing list are getting coal. All 200,000 of you.}

35 lines added in all

Well it's 2 AM on West Coast USA. California, homies. We all surf (even the 8 billion illegal immigrants). Los Angeles is just like they show it in GTA: San Andreas (but with more hookers). Oh yeah, and we only have one season. We call it "perfect".

Anyway, it is RETF ~~Christmas~~ Secular Celebration Day, and I'm not failing to deliver. I'm saying good bye to converting that whole list over. It's full of misspellings that aren't misspellings and words that aren't ever misspelled. From now on this is my method for finding new words:

Spellcheck a random word from the existing list
Open any article where it corrects more than 1 word
Load it into Microsoft Word and spellcheck
See how many times it shows up in Wikipedia using AWB
If it shows up more than 6 times I'll put it into dictionary.com to make sure it's not a real word
Integrate all versions of a word into regular expressions using dictionary.com as a reference
<datagridFAR find="\b(E|e)nvrionmen(t|ts|tal|tally|talist|talists)\b" replacewith="$1nvironmen$2" />

You can do this too and get thanked in the section below! It really works well!

Shoutouts![edit]

This is a new section dedicated to thanking people who found problems or suggested new word(s). PLEASE do this, even with one false positive. And please suggest new words, that's how it's going to expand.
Removed

"eminent" corrected to "imminent" Thanks to Guinnog for finding this.

"Calender" corrected to "calendar". calender is a word. Thanks to Alphachimp. Major props.

Added

"noteable" now corrects to "notable". Thanks to Mets, keep it up!

Fixed

"gracefuly" is the wrong spelling. it's "gracefully" - Thanks to r b-j, who reported this even though he doesn't use RETF!

Download[edit]

You can get the latest version, 0.1.01, here. --mboverload @

"But mboverload, you ALREADY sent the weekly newsletter"[edit]

Well this is important, so suck it up.

RegExTypoFix is now completely built into AutoWikiBrowser

Yes, that's right. My little project has now been integrated into Wikipedia's most famous utility. This expands my reach to around ~250 active users!

But mboverload, what does this mean? - It means that Wikipedia is going to suck less! Yay!
What do I do? - Download the latest version of AWB and go to More Options > Enable RegExTypoFix. Then go to then in the Start tab > Summary dropdown box select RegExTypoFix
What happened to including your name in it? How am I going to praise you with every edit? You mean "mboverload's RegExTypoFix"? Oh, just stick it in there, and complain on the AWB talkpage if you want my name in there standard =P.
How did this come about? Why wasn't I told? - Because it was secret. I have known about this for about a week I think. Putting my typofixing into AWB was suggested in the talk page, however people talking about including spellchecking in AWB has gone back awhile. Martin, the creator and only developer of AWB, informed me and I was absolutely flattered. I now have developer access to AWB so I can update AWB with the latest RETF without having to bother him.
What about updates and the newsletter?
- All updates are just going to be small files with the latest new words and fixes. When AWB updates just throw out the file until I release the next supplemental update.
- I will be releasing the full RegExTypoFix, however it's going to be in the format that AWB uses it and not in its settings xml format. It's way easier to read, though.
- You'll still be getting the newsletter, full of keen insights into the wiki hivemind and commentary on mind-body meta relationships.
mboverload, how long HAVE you worked on RETF anyway? I estimate 50 hours. Using my most accurate method of finding and verifying typos nets me 20 new lines an hour. This does NOT include the hours I've spent testing it.
Where can I find a list of typos to fix? User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix/full
Whore-much? Silence you republican neo-con communist hippie! --mboverload @

^{Spamlist signup}

Michael D. Kaplan[edit]

I noticed that the Michael D. Kaplan information was removed from the Michael Kaplan article, and I was looking through the talk pages to find out why. Should a separate page be created for Michael D. because his names, "Michael D. Kaplan", is so similar to "Michael Kaplan" (the actor)? 192.147.57.6 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, information on different topics should be on different pages (see George Bush as an example). Before creating a page, you should consider if the subject is notable enough. Wikipedia:Notability (people) amd Wikipedia:Notability (music) has more information. Happy editing, mattbr³⁰ 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 6th, 2006 WP:RETF update[edit]

^{Note you are getting this because you are signed up on the RETF spamlist}
Hey guys. Before I do anything, I have to thank all these people who have helped me make RETF more bug-free via my challenge to them on the Language noticeboard. Some were redundant lines, and some were words that probably never appear in Wikipedia, but as I said, I don't want any false positives in RETF.

User:ColourBurst for finding 7 lines to fix
User:Road Wizard for finding another 13 lines to fix!
User:MeltBanana for finding 6 lines
User:Skittle for finding 3 lines
User:Nunh-huh for finding 1 line

THANKS GUYS! Now for the fixes and suggestions put on the RETF page:

'behaviour' is a legitimate UK English spelling --Guinnog
'councellor' to 'councillor' when 'counsellor' could be the intended word. --mattbr³⁰
"Costal" is a real word, meaning "related to the rib" —Mets501 (talk)
'judgemental' to 'judgmental'. According to my dictionary, both are equally acceptable. mattbr³⁰
'Adaptions' to 'Adaptations'. JoeSmack ^Talk
repond and variants -> respond --Guinnog

RETF development[edit]

I don't know what to say really. Something has come up and I might not be able to continue to update RETF after the next week or so.......I have put in countless sleepless nights of just me, my computer, and a case of Rockstar energy drink working on this. It has made me feel that I really am a devoted Wikipedian.

I have developed RegExTypoFix from a little hobby of mine into a full SourceForge project. I told a friend that I’ve worked 50 development hours in all. I have a really bad sense of time, but I’m sure it was more. I won’t lie, I am very proud of my work. Hopefully this will be used long after I leave.

To ensure that, I need a person/people to become admins on the RETF project. I don’t ask that you do anything but fix any errors that people report. There is a bit of a process to doing this, but I can teach you. Please send me a message on my talk page. Please my close friends only please, I hope you understand that I want to 100% trust this person. However, I might just hand it off to User:Bluemoose, as if he didn’t have enough on his plate =D.

Download + more[edit]

User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix/updateboxTo keep an eye on RETF, you can use {{User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix/updatebox}} and it will produce the box you see here =D. When AWB updates, I can turn it green on command =P

Extract Typos.xml from the zip file either using the zip extraction tool provided with XP or use 7zip.

Under the new system that Martin (User:Bluemoose) developed Typos.xml is separate from the settings file. This way it can be easily swapped out and doesn't interfere with your own personal find and replace settings. Put it in the AWB directory. It is loaded automatically when you start AWB.

In addition, each Typos.xml file comes coded with a version number. Perhaps in some future release AWB will be able to check to see if there's an update for you!

The latest version is not built into AWB, you will have to download it here Just updated a few minutes ago. --mboverload @ 01:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedalCountry[edit]

Please see my comment at Template talk:MedalCountry. Thanks, Jao 10:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary 1956[edit]

Thanks for drawing my attention to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 article. The page I have started recently, Hungary 23 October 1956, I intend to develop on quite different lines, with more emphasis on facts instead of interpretation and analysis. You will see this more clearly as the page develops. 56osmunka 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since anything happened to this article and it doesn't look finished. Can I suggest that you develop it further to become distinctive from the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 article, perhaps moving it to something along the lines of 'Timeline of events during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956', try and generate links to the article from other articles and promote it to and gain assistance from others who might be able to help, such as those at the military history WikiProject. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, mattbr³⁰ 11:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Great Wall of China[edit]

umm...i didnt vandalise anything...i've never been on the great wall of china PAGE... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.29.249 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re: KLDE to KHTC and KKBT to KRBV[edit]

Please do not move pages by cutting and pasting the contents from the old page to the new page, as you did with KLDE & KHTC, and KKBT & KRBV. This method does NOT maintain the edit history of the page in one place and requires a history merge to be performed by an administrator to fix it. The licence the site uses requires that contributions of editors to an article need to be maintained, which is done through the page history, and by having the entire history of an article in one place, this makes the article history much easier to trace. In future, please use the move page function. If you have any questions please ask. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for moving using the cut and paste technique to move these pages. I thought this was necessary as these stations had a change of call letters.

I am now aware that this creates a huge problem. I will CAREFULLY read up on how changes should be made before I do any editing in the future and if I have any questions, I will ask before I make these changes.

I have a strong passion for radio and I wanted to use my knowledge and extra time to help keep this area of wikipedia accurate and up to date.

Brent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Transent (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's OK, you were quite right to move the articles to their new names. I hope you keep contributing and can I suggest you look at WikiProject Radio which you might want to join where there are other editors who have an interest in radio and work on radio-related articles. Happy editing, mattbr³⁰ 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holgen Pedersen[edit]

Hello, please do not leave blank pages as you did with Holgen Pedersen as this gives the false impression there is an article there when there isn't. Please either move the article to a new title, redirect it to another article or have the page deleted by an administrator. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 13:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. This was a spelling typographical mistake.

I wanted an article on Holger Pedersen n/r: Holgen vs. Holger.

Why do I need an ADMINISTRATOR for a mear deletion like that?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it was a spelling mistake, which happens. If you find you have created an article with the wrong title, you can move the page to a new title. If the article has already been written by someone else, you can include any new information in the new article, which leaves you with a redundant article (the one at the wrong location). If the title is a COMMON misspelling which many many people use, you can redirect it to the correct spelling to help others who are looking for the article at the wrong spelling (you do not need a redirect for every misspelling). Otherwise the article should be deleted rather than blanked because blanking leaves an entry in the encyclopedia which is of no value to anyone, clutters up the encyclopedia and causes a number of other problems. To have a page deleted which only you have contributed to, you can place the template {{db-author}} on the page, which places the article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which will be seen by an administrator and the page will usually be deleted. There are a number of other ways to have a page deleted, which are set out at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Due to a number of issues, pages can only be deleted by administrators.

I hope that helps, and please ask if you have any more questions. mattbr³⁰ 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Info placed on my Talk page.

I've been a Wiki since August of this year.

So I've learned most of what you've said - by trial& error, by the way.

So what I really wanted to know was: How to Delete a Blank Page - Accidentally Crated (By Me)!

According to you, I need an Administrator for that.

That's Wasteful - I my opinion.

As an experiment now, I'll try to created the article [[.]].

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 16:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[.]]

Surprise! How come we can't create an article for the period? --Ludvikus 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't know why the page '.' cannot be linked to or created, but this would be due to the MediaWiki software.

Regarding deleting a page, you personally cannot press a button to delete a page (neither can I), only users who have been given administrator rights can. This is because pages can only be deleted if they meet certain criteria or if they have the consensus of the community, and this is acted upon by an administrator. The administrator will have been trusted with the tools by the community and will be familiar with the deletion criteria and the general workings of the site. There would be a huge number of problems if everybody could delete pages (such as abuse by vandals, people involved in edit wars etc.) and the site would fall apart because articles would be deleted left, right and centre.

If YOU have created a page and YOU have been the only contributor, YOU can request to have it deleted by placing the {{db-author}} tag at the top of the page. This is one of the criteria for speedy deletion (G7), where the page can be suggested for deletion without discussion, which the deleting administrator agrees to (usually done within 24 hours, depending on the backlog). Otherwise, an article can be proposed for deletion (for uncontroversial deletions that do not meet the speedy criteria) or sent for discussion at articles for deletion, which take 5 to 7 days to complete. mattbr³⁰ 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universities in the United Kingdom[edit]

Why replace your regional templates with {{Universities in the United Kingdom}}? — mholland 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the regional templates because I think that the national template is much more useful as a navbox than the regional ones because it links all the UK universities rather than just the ones in a region. I think that many people who are looking at university pages will want to look at others in different regions, which is much easier to do with the UK template. The grouping in the template has remained regionalised so that by-region usage can be maintained. I have also formatted similar templates, like the research groupings, in the same style as numerous templates can appear on the one page, and each one had a different look and size etc making them look untidy (more and more navboxes across the site are using the same format). They also now collapse when there are more than 3 on the page to make the page look less cluttered. mattbr³⁰ 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It looks good, well done. — mholland 17:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help[edit]

Thank you for the help with the Infobox for the LE project; would love to put the LE project link back on there with a little mini LE Project picture like I had it before and have it work. Can I get some assistance with that too? Much Obliguedcprockhill 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Regarding the link, unfortunately you can't as references to pages outside article space should be avoided (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). The place to link to the project is on the talk page with the project banner. Let me know if you have further questions, mattbr³⁰ 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that...that makes a lot of sense how it was structured then. I did add the LE Project logo...without a link...no rules against that right?cprockhill 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, unfortunately not as it is still a reference to Wikipedia and the community. Infoboxes don't usually have a generic logo in them, only that of the organisation they refer to. You could consider adding other parameters, such as a map of the area covered, where the headquarters are, year established that would flesh it out a bit. There is also Template:InfoboxPolice, have you considered expanding that? mattbr³⁰ 09:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank You for your fix of a template[edit]

Mattbr30, A big thanks to you for fixing Template:Infobox Tru Calling episode, I really appreciate it :) , I was not sure what I was doing wrong, but again, thanks :) ..

Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Just so you know, the wikitable needed closing with |} and anything inside the tags won't appear when the template is used. Let me know if you have any questions, mattbr30 00:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am not that experienced at template editing lol :P . Also, I am not trying to bother you with this, but could you add in something like this to the template?

{{Infobox Tru Calling episode
| Title        =
| Series       =
| Image        =
| Caption      =
| Season       =
| Episode      =
| Airdate      =
| Production   =
| Writer       =
| Director     =
| T.O.D.       =
| Guests       =
| Episode list =
| Prev         =
| Next         =
}}

The 'T.O.D.' I mean, in the show tru calling, victims have a time of death, and I think it'd be cool to add that into the infobox template. Again, you do not have to do this, I am just asking :) , thanks, Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, templates take a bit of getting used to! I have added the Time of death bit with the parameter being timeofdeath =. It's optional so it won't show up unless you include it. I hope that's what you wanted. mattbr³⁰ 00:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iga no Kabamaru[edit]

im sorry for my last comment on the rticle iga_no_kabamaro

i wanted to know if you could notice a small change in an article

between mellion of articles ,i really respect this encyclopedia

your doing a great job ,and to fix this i well write an article soon

about a new kung fu style that have been created by a yemeni named —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.114.184.75 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, all changes in an article are recorded in it's history and these changes are listed in the recent changes list. If you are writing a new article, please look at the notability guidelines and the Manual of Style. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 09:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gogeldrie[edit]

Hi VirtualSteve, please don't copy and paste articles from one page to another as you did with Gogelderie, New South Wales and Gogeldrie, New South Wales as this means that the editing history of the page is lost, which needs to be kept as part of the licence the site uses. Instead, please use the move page function which will move the article as well as the history of the page, and places a redirect to the new title at the old. An administrator has deleted the new page and moved the old to the new title. Thanks and happy editing, mattbr³⁰ 11:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mattbr30 and NoSeptember. My intentions were honorable as I was just attempting to redirect because of the misspelling of Gogeldrie and thought that that was the right procedure and that I had read the process correctly at Wikipedia:Redirect. Obviously I didn't - anyway I appreciate the pick-up, information on move page, and fix-up. Won't happen again.--VS ^{talk...images} 12:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, now you know. A history merge, like I did here, isn't much work. Thank you for your contributions. If you ever need help, just ask. Happy editing. NoSeptember 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You learn something new everyday :). Always happy to help, mattbr³⁰ 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mattpinsent.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mattpinsent.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Steveredgrave.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Steveredgrave.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jamescracknell.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jamescracknell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject invitation[edit]

Hello, Mattbr/Archive 1 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page messages[edit]

Hi Matt I am trying to learn around wiki, I just posted an image that you deleted as I was warned and expected.

Sorry for adding work, I just had to try - I am really missing images on wiki - yet I was surprised by how sophisticated the reaction and the actual reply was (Someone actually check the upload. :-)) How does that work? hu are you?

One last question - did you write the message yourself or how much have you been assissted by automation? How many mails like that do you do per day? :)

Zoro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorkovsky (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Zorkovsky, due to the licence the site uses, the GNU Free Documentation License, all contributions to the site must be freely copyable (under the licence) for others to use (this is why you see Wikipedia content on other sites). This means that copyrighted material can only be used under fair use laws and must meet the fair use criteria, with the key criterion being that no free alternative could be found. In the case of images of living people, copyrighted pictures cannot be used as a free image could be taken by anyone (as was the case for your image).

As for my 'magical powers', people are constantly uploading images and people often do not include enough information, if any, or make false claims on the source or the copyright status of the image. To avoid Wikipedia being sued for breach of copyright, uploads are checked by other users of the site to ensure they contain the right information so they can be used, and the software generates a special page with a gallery of new images uploaded by users to make this checking easier. There is a similar page for checking edits to pages, called recent changes.

Regarding the messages, the welcome message is a standard message (in the form of a template) used to welcome new users (there is one at the top of my talk page from when I joined) to help point new users in the right direction and provide a point of contact. The copyright notice I wrote myself, but there are also templates available for other situations (such as the one used by Jkelly). I personally don't post that many messages, but other users post lots!

Finally, I am just a regular Wikipedian just like you. Let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing, mattbr³⁰ 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. When leaving a message on a talk page, type ~~~~ which produces your signature and a time stamp, so other users know who has posted a message and when. For me this leaves: mattbr³⁰ 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC) :).[reply]

Uploading images[edit]

Hello Boston24, when you upload an image, please ensure you include the source of the image and that you select a licence from the dropdown box. This is to ensure that the copyright status of the image can be determined. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so confused by your note left for me on my talk page re the Randy Quaid images. I uploaded another Randy Quaid photo and fixed errors that I made so I uploaded the new ones in what I thought was the same manner - can you tell me in simple terms what on earth I'm doing wrong?

thanks! Boston24 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boston, this message is quite long, but please bear with me!

Regarding the message directly above, when you go to the upload page, there is a 'Summary' box and a 'Licensing' box.

In the summary box, make sure you include where the image has come from. For example, if you have found the image on a website, include a link to it, or if you have taken the photo yourself, say so. This is so other editors know where the image has come from and the copyright status of the image can be determined. In the images you uploaded, you said that they came from a press kit, so you would want to include a information about what the press kit was for, who wrote it, where you got it from, and a link to it if one exists.

The licensing box allows you to select a suitable licence for your image, which tells other editors the copyright status. This is important as the licence dictates how an image can be used by Wikipedia and by other sites. For example, a company logo is copyrighted, which means that the company holds the copyright. Wikipedia can use copyrighted images under fair use laws, but their use MUST meet the fair use criteria. For the images you uploaded, you would claim fair use, so you would need to select 'Fair use image of a living person'. This brings me on to the first message I left.

Fair use criterion number 1 says: 'No free equivalent [image] is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information'. In the case of a living person, anybody could take a picture of them and release the image under a free licence. This means that Wikipedia cannot claim fair use for the image and it must be deleted, which is the case for the images you uploaded. The first message I left is a notification of that. Unfortunately, image copyright is a bit of a minefield and can be confusing, and it takes time to understand all the different bits, but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, as this prevents themselves getting sued for breach of copyright, so it can't be ignored.

The upload page summarises what I mentioned about the boxes so as long as you read the information on there, you should include all you need, but you can read Wikipedia:Uploading images which talks about it more. For copyright, there is more information at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ.

I hope that's a bit clearer, but let me know if you have any more questions. Happy editing, mattbr³⁰ 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what I really need to do it get the photographer to sign off on the usage of the photo re the copyright issue? The other notations I can easily fix Boston24 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could ask the copyright owner to release the picture into the public domain or under a free licence that Wikipedia can use. Note that permission for use on Wikipedia only is not sufficient. There is more on this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, including examples you can use for sending emails and the email to which you must forward any permissions you receive, otherwise the image will be deleted. Good luck, mattbr³⁰ 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Bug: Title bolding - Fixed[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive#Title_bolding has been fixed in SVN Rev 607

Reedy Boy 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! mattbr³⁰ 13:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give rationale for why you dispute fair use[edit]

On the Image:Rmacleanabaroa.jpg you disputed the fair use arguement by applying a template but please note that the tag asks you to discuss it on the talk page, which you have yet to do. Note this line on the template you added (emphasis added) "Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed."

Neither the World Bank nor the nation of Bolivia has released a photo of Maclean into the public domain. In fact the nation of Bolivia never releases photos into the public domain, so where do you suggest that free images can be found to replace this World Bank publicity photo?

--Wowaconia 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the notice on the tag, it states, with my emphasis:

Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed.

The image does not contain a this rationale, that's why I have not put anything on the talk page.

If I could also quote the first fair use criterion, again with my emphasis:

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as the basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.

For an image of a living person, this means that anyone could take a photograph of this person and release it under a free licence, therefore any copyrighted image is replaceable and fails the fair use criteria. Just because a free image doesn't already exist, one could still be created. One reason that an image of a living person would be irreplaceable would be that the event depicted in the picture could not or will not be recreated, for example a marriage or coronation ceremony. Images of dead people are permitted because you couldn't go out an take a picture of them. This image is therefore replaceable, unless you can provide a valid rationale for it being irreplaceable. Just because the government does not release images into the public domain, this does not mean images are irreplaceable. The UK government does not (see crown copyright), but there are still 'free' images of HM Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair.

If Wikipedia doesn't meet the fair use criteria, it could be sued for breach of copyright for allowing the image to be used. A claim that the use of the image would "not negatively affect the finances of the World Bank" is not valid, as it is likely that the photographer owns the copyright for the image and the World Bank use it with permission, so it is the photographers finances you are 'negatively affecting'. If this claim was valid, it would completely undermine the copyright laws.

I hope that answers your questions, let me know if you have any more. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad images[edit]

Don't worry, I've put a reason on the talk pages why they should stay. They all feature obscure, retired players and the pictures are very hard to find. I had to look for minutes for each of them. Soxrock 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to use {{Replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement is not available}} so that the reviewing admin knows that you dispute the tagging. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam[edit]

apologies for left link on bbc page - this was mere accidental —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.167.93 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please be more careful next time. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovak x Czechoslovakian[edit]

Yes, you are right that the categories should be consistent. Thanks for letting me know about the overall renaming nomination. Jan.Kamenicek 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the problem. I need featured content protected. Is it possible?

Why?[edit]

Viaboston13 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)I need featured content protected. Is that possible?Viaboston13 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages can only be protected by administrators, and the page must meet the criteria in the Protection policy before this happens. Bettinna does not appear to meet any of the criteria so it is unlikely any request for page protection would be granted. The act of protection is not done by placing one of the protection notices on the page, so including these will not protect the article.

Regarding the article, the page was previously deleted as the result of an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion (see here), and that is why I have tagged the page for deletion. Please do not delete the template, but add {{hangon}} to the page and follow the instructions if you wish to contest it. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattbr30, there seem to be a mistake. Ignore previous featured page. Artist is an indie Artist. This article and content is written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

Delete? Explain[edit]

Please explain why content needs to be deleted. How do I keep content from being deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viaboston13 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please read the first message I posted on this topic. Bettinna was previously deleted as the result of an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion at this page, and that is why I have tagged the page for deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4 - Recreation of deleted material. To ask that the page not be deleted you need to follow the instructions on the templates, which tells you to place {{hangon}} on the page and then explain why you don't want it deleted on the talk page.

Please also note that I do not believe the article meets the notability guidelines, particularly for music. Also, the article does not provide reliable sources to make the information verifiable. The page may also be considered for deletion because they lack these. mattbr³⁰ 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About posting pictures of footballers[edit]

Is it OK if I post pictures of football players from the official sites of their football clubs? If not, what should I do to make it legal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shingkei (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As the images you have posted are copyrighted, their use on Wikipedia is under fair use. For any image used under fair use, it must meet the fair use criteria. As the pictures are of living people, anybody can go out and take a picture of the person in question and release it under a free licence that Wikipedia can use. This means that the image fails the first fair use criterion because the image could be replaced with a free image, even if one doesn't exist yet. If you believe that no free alternative could be taken, you can place {{Replaceable fair use disputed | Your reason why a free replacement is not available}} on the image page without removing the original tag and the deciding administrator will take this into consideration. Please ask if you have any other questions, mattbr³⁰ 09:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by German Revanchists[edit]

No. 1 This is not vandalism: the Swiss city of Basle was never an German Imperial city. You have to get your facts right. As explained Prague, Rotterdam, Brussels etc. would have also been also Imperial cities at one time or another. But this is not true, for it does not reflect today's political landscape and it would offend Germany's neighbours. Given for instance Luxembourg, which is an independent state between France and Germany, and it was much larger than it is today. But thence it woud have been a part of the German empire. Furthermore the Reichskreise, or circles are nothing but a fiction. It was a decree by the Austrian Holy Roman Emporer Maximillian to rid the powerful regional rulers off their territories. But they did NOT accept this and converted to Protestantism and fought Maximillian and his grandson. We don't want to see Wikipedia becoming a pseudo historical encyclopaedia, where some German revanchists can dictate their point of view to the readers. Everything would be fine when it would involve European history, but there is really no place for it when it comes to the entries for contempory Germany. Does Munich have such funny entries? You see also Hamburg was once Danish and Bremen was once Swedish or a part of Hanover state. I shall urge you to strip wikipedia off Reichskreise. The Reichskreise were rediscovered by the Nazis who had in mind to convert the Gaus into Reichskreise. This is also a warning NOT to FABRICATE historical facts.

Please accept those contributions by some German users are a part of the Airbus/EADS dispute, which has brought again up German-French tensions, which should not feed into wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.157.239.230 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Basel. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. merleauponty³⁰ 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Goslar, you will be blocked. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. merleauponty³⁰ 12:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Hamburg, you will be blocked from editing. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. merleauponty³⁰ 12:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Hamburg, you will be blocked from editing. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been

Note: The above warnings were posted by 193.157.239.230 (talk) and are identical to the ones posted on their talk page by me, except the username has been changed. mattbr³⁰ 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe content is incorrect on Wikipedia, please provide references from reliable sources to back up your edits. Your edits are contradictory to other content on the site.

Also, do not impersonate another user as you did with the warnings on my talk page. Continuation of this will result in further blocks. mattbr³⁰ 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Revanchists[edit]

(1) How come that you know that i'd impersonate another user? (2) Please remove these entries on German (holy Roman) Imperial Cities and Circles. I think the content of there entries is inflammatory, to say the least! (3) I do not have to prove that they are wrong--these guys have to prove that they are right on this. (4) This is revanchism and it is a deep insult to the neighbouring nations. (5) Historical links have nothing to do in current entries of cities, or do we wish to see another annexation of neighbouring countries, be it only virtual.

Please remove these links, immediately.

Authorative for me is the work of

Winfried Dotzauer, Die deutschen Reichskreise (1386-1806). Geschichte und Aktenedition, Stuttgart 1998.

Joachim Whaley's forthcoming book The History of the Holy Roman Empire 1495-1806 http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/german/staff/jw10005/

Roger Wines' The Imperial Circles, Princely Diplomacy and Imperial Reform 1681-1714. (1967). I cite here from this work, because there is no need for translation. But the above works reflect the same position.

" In the later decades of the century, wars against Louis XIV and Turks stimulated imperial patriotism and fears for self-preservation among princes. At the same time, serious divisions - between Catholics and Protestants, opposition of the princes to Hanover's new elctoral rank, inte intrigues of pro-French (County of Berg) and pro-Austrian (Swabia,Bavaria) prevented effective action by the emprie as a whole. While larger states (Prussia and Hanover) raised their own armies to become armed estates, the small princelings of the south and west utilized the circle constitution for protection.

Of the ten original imperial circles only a few still functioned effectively by 1648 (the end of the 30 year war). The circles Austria and Burgundy, composed solely of Hapsburg lands, nvever developed formal constitutions. Other circles that had been active in the sixteenth century COLLAPSED with the growth of powerful absolute states such as Brandenburg-Prussia and Saxony. Thus, the lower Saxon circle held its last assembly in 1683 (Right this particular Reichskreis had been active until 1683! and thereafter resolved! It had been in force from 1495 until 1683 a whopping 158 years (during the thirties year war the circles were inactive) of the nearly 1000 year lasting Holy Roman empire. Get your facts right: the Reichskreise were a non-starter in the first place and because of their meaninglessness have nothing to do in the entries for modern German cities!). while the Bavarian circle met only intermittantly in the seventeenth and eigthteens centuries., chielfy to vote wartime levies for the imperial army. The rheinbund of 1658 temporarily weakend the organization of the circle in Franconia and helped cause a suspension of meetings of the Westphailian circle, 1671-97, and of electorial Rhine, 1667-97 (this is where Berg belonged to as flsel claimed by the person who has added this link in Wiki). Divisions between Catholic and Protestant princes crippled the upper Rhenish circle form 1664 to 1667. ..."

So what had the Reichscirlces for a significance if they met less regularly than the United Nations?

Lastly, the Nazis had the Reich divided into Gaue, but there was the endeaviour after the "Final Victory" to expand the boundaries of the German empire to suit those prior to 1648 (hence including even Verdun into the German territory).

Check out: Allan A. Lund: Germanenideologie im Nationalsozialsmus: Zur Rezeption der Germania des Tacitus im "Dritten Reich." Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1995. about this!

Check out the Kreisabschiede —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.157.239.230 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly, those (copied) warnings were not posted by the user in question (who has never edited my talk page), and were posted by this address [1] with the username also changed by this address [2]. If you are that user, you should log in and post a message saying so.

The source for the information on the articles appears to have come from the German Wikisource entry Hernach volgend die zehen Krayß. Rather than just continually removing information from articles with no edit summary and information on the site contradicting your removals, you should edit the relevant articles on the subject (such as Lower Saxon Circle) providing reliable sources to back up your edits. Anybody wishing to express a different viewpoint should also provide references. I don't know much about the topic in question and don't have an opinion on what is correct. The reason I reverted your edits was because you provided no rationale for removing content, its removal was contradictory to the content removed, and you continued to do so after being warned not to (and to contact me if you felt the edit should not have been reverted), which I consider vandalism. If you had not ignored the warnings I posted here and contacted me after the first warning, it is unlikely that you would have been blocked. mattbr³⁰ 10:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Czechoslovakia[edit]

I'm thinking we ought to let it live, as a redirect. If you disagree, just let me know, and I'll proceed with the already-scheduled execution. -- Prove It ^(talk)

I don't mind, although if it's left people might still use it. If it's deleted and it keeps getting recreated it can be made into a redirect at a later date. If you want to delete it I'll watch it and see how it goes. Thanks, matt br 15:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice UK[edit]

Hello, Mattbr/Archive 1 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 08:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I have only made one edit to the The Apprentice (UK) article (a reversion) and I'm not active on those pages. matt br 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to the Messianic Judaism template[edit]

I have reverted it for the following reasons:

-You edited out Talmud under the premise that "only exclusively Messianic" links be used. This is strange considering that other religions use both the Hebrew Bible and the "New Testament". Please see the discussion page for the template for multiple citations that establish that a sizable amount of Messianics find it important to study the Talmud.

-Similarly, you removed both the topics in Judaism and Christianity. If you had watched the TfD discussion it was agreed upon (concensus) that both Judaism and Christianity subjects be included in the template but with hide/show buttons. As a matter of fact that's the only reason you see the hide/show buttons on the template.

-The "Old Testament" (a name that Messianics generally despise) is the same as the Hebrew Tanakh with minor differences in organization of the texts. Messianics generally use the Tanakh according to the Masoretic text. You listed more or less the same book on the template twice.

-You removed the Wikiproject link...

For all of these reasons your edit to the template was without merit. Noogster 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noogster, please note that the only edits I have made to the template have been to remove the WikiProject link (this was my latest edit), so your comments on my talk page are misplaced, apart from the WikiProject link, which I have discussed previously at Template talk:Messianic Judaism/Exclusive MJ. Please do try to discuss the content of the template on the talk page rather than reverting, as edit warring doesn't achieve any productive results (it is also worse on templates as every time you edit it a change has to be made in every page using the template). You are much more likely to get your points across by discussing them with other editors and reaching a consensus. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, matt br 08:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Olympics[edit]

Re {{prod}}, aha, that article was originally tagged as {{Disambig}} and the other ones are tagged as {{numberdis}}, which is why I thought it was the only one around. Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alot![edit]

Hey, thank you so much for fixing that Tru Calling ep template! :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! You're lucky I still had it on my watchlist! Drop me a note if you ever need help in the future and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, matt br 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good :) .. Have a nice day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outward Bound[edit]

Are you the same Mattbr that changed the title? Don't worry I'm not annoyed, I stuck the TM on by mistake in instead of ®. But no probs if its not the done thing.--Pandaplodder 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile![edit]

Saber girl08 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Saber girl08 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Hi WJB, could you just look over these two CNRs:

Background articles for ongoing events (hist) ⇒ Portal:Current events – Disjointed history between that, Current events and Portal:Current events
List of dog topics (hist) ⇒ Portal:Dogs – List of misc dog topics that didn't fit into any other category. This was whittled down to zero and redirected to the portal.

Do you think either of these be deleted if consensus was to do so due to their edit histories? I just wanted another opinion before (re–)nominating them for deletion. Thanks, matt br 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like either of those regardless of their history. The titles give the reader no idea that they're going to end up at a portal. They seem totally unnecessary. I guess the only problem is whether the history was originally encorporated into the portals. If the content was merged in, there is a GDFL problem with not keeping them. Do you have any idea whether the redirecting just selected the best target or whether content was transfered to the portals in question? I think they should be nominated anyway, but it may be a struggle to get them deleted if this question can't be answered. WjBscribe 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dogs list was used as a list of uncategorised articles which were eventually categorised and the pages effectively blanked before the redirect. I'm not quite sure what happened with the other. The history ends in 2003, and the histories of Current events and Portal:Current events don't start until 2006. As far as I can tell the content wasn't incorporated, but the page was redirected about three years before the target (Current events) appears to have existed?! matt br 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it seems safe to nominate them. Others may not even raise the GDFL issue. In any event the titles seem harmful enough (in that they could be encyclopedic content) to justify the deletions. No harm in giving the RfC a try. WjBscribe 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) matt br 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otley School link[edit]

Hi Matt

Forgive me if you are not the correct person for this message, I just looked at the page history for Otley.

I would like to include a link to our Primary School Website in the Otley Page, but it seems to have been removed. The Page History suggests you have removed it. Just wondered if you could explain if I am doing something wrong?

Many thanks

Regards

Phil Robertson <email removed to prevent spam> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.185.245 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No worries, you have the right person! External links on pages should be related to the subject of the article, so on Otley, links would be appropriate to pages that are about Otley in general and which would be informative to the reader about Otley. In-directly related topics about things in Otley such as schools, clubs and societies shouldn't be included (I removed several of these in this edit) as these don't provide further information on the topic of the article (Otley). So a link would be appropriate to the school on a page about the school, as it provides further, relevant information on the topic, although primary schools are generally not considered notable enough for inclusion on the site. There is more on external links at Wikipedia:External links. I hope that explains why I removed the link, but please ask if you have any other questions. Thanks, matt br 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GARY OAK[edit]

Sorry about the edit, my little brother must have gone under my account, I'm automatically logged in. Again my apologies.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your help, but someone else answered it first... ;) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

Thank you for expressing your concern about my username, I like recieving advice, because it means that I can act apon this and learn better.

My username was chosen to be SwissRe, because the SwissRe Tower, in London is my favourite building, thus, I did not mean to create any issues with any large Corporations.

If nessecary, I will happily change my name to "Gherkin Building", or any other suggestion that you may have.

Once again, thank you for letting me know of your concerns. SwissRe 10:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, it takes a little time to get used to all the different things around here! You can change your user name to whatever you like (as long as it complies with Wikipedia:Username). A suggestion of maybe Gherkin30 (combining the building nickname and the address)? Anyway, whatever you choose, just fill out a request at Wikipedia:Changing username when you're ready and a bureaucrat will change it for you (they're usually pretty quick). Let me know if you have any questions in the future and I'll see what I can do! Happy editing, matt br 10:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal RfD[edit]

Hi, I closed the rfd you had for the various portal redirects as no consensus and I now need to remove the tags. Before I go and roll them back, I wanted to see if you had used a script, bot or other means that would make this a lot easier. John Reaves (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks a lot that's tremendous time saver. John Reaves (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

It has been changed, --Gherkin30 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (SwissRe)[reply]

AWB[edit]

Thanks for the heads up; I will most certainly adjust accordingly. Regards, Keesiewonder ^talk 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just noticing all your great work![edit]

Thanks! matt br 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Wire episodes[edit]

Noting that you edited List of The Wire episodes within the last few months I wonder if you have an opinion about the use of screenshots in this article and would welcome your opinion here if you have time.--Opark 77 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mattbr! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page.

As you may have noticed, we are experiencing some problems with the moderation tool. While we are working as quickly as possible to correct these issues, delays do happen. Thanks again for your patience. Ale_Jrb ^talk 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Krishnamurthy Perumal[edit]

Hi Matt, This is concerning the article on My Krishnamurthy Perumal. I've added a couple of references for this article, as it has been tagged as unreferenced. The references are to official Government of India and Government of Tamilnadu website. I've also included a reference to a reliable website on Indian hockey (BharatiyaHockey.com). I hope this is sufficient to remove the tag on this article. If not, please let me know if more references are necessary.

I am new to Wikipedia, so kindly bear with me. Regards, Ganesh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganeshkrish18 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Ganeshkrish18, the first two references you have included are good for the verification of the specific facts in the article, but it would be good if another reference or two could be provided that cover more information in the article, such as birth information. These references may also help you to expand the article further. Have you had a look at other articles of similar people, as there may be references on those that might be able to provide some information. I would be tempted to leave the referencing tag on until additional references are found, after which it can be removed. Plus this might help to find someone who may have a reference that would be of use. You might also find Wikipedia:Citing sources of use. Hope that helps, matt br 22:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Hi there! I noticed you replied to a question at the help desk and signed it and I noticed that your signature was displaying the colour codes instead of the actual output effect (if you get what I mean!), I thought It would be the best thing to tell you so you can sort it out, I'd be hapy to help with this, should this be necessary.Telly addict 11:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tellyaddict, I'm not sure what you mean. My raw signature code is '[[User:Mattbr|matt]][[User talk:Mattbr|br]]' and has no colour information in it. I think you have me confused with someone else! matt br 11:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its just I saw it after you kindly answered a new users question at the help desk and it was just displaying the code as you have written above, maybe it was just me? Thanks - Telly addict 11:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see a problem, and it's not happened before. Maybe it is? matt br 11:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wont stop[edit]

I wont stop editing Contra (series). I will keep going in favor of all the information I've put up here just so they can be deleted. If you want me to stop, assure me that my information (which is true, by the way) will not be deleted.

Do you understand? It will keep going until I get justice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.9.43 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Continuation of your current editing will result in you being blocked and/or the page being protected from editing, so I suggest you stop. Other editors must feel that the information you are adding is not suitable or relevant for the article and are removing it and should tell you why in the edit summary. I suggest you leave a message on their talk page or leave a message on the article talk page about your additions and they should tell you why the information is being removed and what is needed to leave it in the article. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which might inform you further. matt br 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so?[edit]

Well let me just tell you what I added to the article so someone will know. The discussion page is always ignored. All I did was add more information by adding more ports that exist for Contra. There are quite a few ports that I added that some people removed, claiming they don't exist. Well, if they researched it, they'd find it. It's not like I need to source everything I write. It's easily findable. Next, I included a section that informed people about the pirate-type NES Contra games made and they deleted that. I don't know what's wrong with that section. It isn't wrong and many other game articles, like Mega Man, have information on pirate versions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.9.43 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If there are reliable sources for the material you are adding, then I suggest that you add them when you add the content to provide evidence, and then the material won't be deleted because there is no source or because it can't be proved (although it could be for another reason). You say the evidence is easily findable, but others may not be able to find it and it is up to you to back up your additions. matt br 18:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contra Series Test[edit]

Watch: I'm going to make a section regarding the special unique pirate versions and we'll see how long it can last without being entirely removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.11.108 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Will you look at that?[edit]

You happy now? I just added a section regarding the pirate games of Contra with sources, and it gets deleted in less than an hour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.149.111 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From what I can see, the information you added to Contra (series)#Pirate Versions is still in the article since its addition. Please also sign you post to talk pages with ~~~~. Thanks, matt br 13:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT[edit]

Hi Flatterworld, I have noticed you have been adding the DEFAULTSORT template to articles recently. Just to let you know that this feature is a magic word and not a template, and the correct construction is {{DEFAULTSORT:Sortkey}} rather than {{DEFAULTSORT|Sortkey}}, using ":" instead of "|". The template was created to prevent confusion and shouldn't be used if possible. Thanks, matt br 11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) I think I've fixed them all now, but is there some way I can find out for sure? I want to avoid possible cut-and-paste errors down the line. Flatterworld 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could check Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:DEFAULTSORT and see if you have edited any of the articles. This list is a lot shorter than it was so it should be relatively easy! Thanks, matt br 19:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more DEFAULTSORT[edit]

I went ahead and fixed the rest of the ones I could figure out, but I'm confused about the bot ones at the bottom. Flatterworld 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you didn't have to fix them all! I have nowiki'd the bot logs and left a note on the plugin page to ask for them to be nowiki 'd in future. Thanks again, matt br 22:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy now?????[edit]

You're happy now? Less than 2 days and then it's reverted! If you don't want me to vandalize it, then assure me that my work is not removed! How many times do I have to tell you it?!!

Vandalising will not achieve anything apart from getting yourself blocked and/or the page protected from editing, so I strongly advise you to not do so. I suggest you make your entry more encyclopaedic, emphasising the importance of the points you are making in relation to the article and its history. The editor who removed the content says it 'serves no purpose', so I suggest you make it serve a purpose by making it more encyclopaedic rather than just describing the versions. You should also provide links to reliable sources, as this makes it much easier to verify the information you have written, and it is up to you to provide references, not for others to find them. You should read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:What is a good article? which may be of help to you. matt br 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit summaries[edit]

In response to your message about always using edit summaries when I edit, -- you're right, I should. I sometimes don't know what to put but understand the need to do so – I'll try and make it a habit when editing. Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia a better place for us all. --J. Atkins (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just explain what you have done to the page so others can see easily what you have done. It makes it much easier to find who's done what and when they did it in the page history rather than viewing every diff! Doesn't have to be long, just enough to describe what you have done. Happy editing, matt br 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{DEFAULTSORT}[edit]

Hi Schmiteye, I have noticed you have been adding the DEFAULTSORT template to articles recently. Just to let you know that this feature is a magic word and not a template, and the correct construction is {{DEFAULTSORT:Sortkey}} rather than {{DEFAULTSORT|Sortkey}}, using ":" instead of "|". The template was created to prevent confusion and shouldn't be used if possible. Thanks, matt br 11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for the info on DEFAULTSORT. I don't quite understand the use of ":" rather than "|".

I HAVE noticed that many people are doing odd things with the cats when using {DEFAULTSORT}. For some reason people are doing things like: [Category:1953 births|1953 births] and so the sorting falls under "1" rather than using the {defaultsort} ordering. Any idea why anyone would do such a thing? It always seems to occur when someone uses {defaultsort}. Schmiteye 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The functionality that sets the default sort key is a MediaWiki feature and is built into the software, rather than into a template. It is a magic word, like {{PAGENAME}}, and they use ':' rather than '|' when something can be defined, as using '|' will call a template. Because magic words are not as widely understood as templates, when it was first introduced not so long ago people were using '|' because the magic word is constructed almost identically to a template, and people were getting a red link trying to call a template that didn't exist. Template:DEFAULTSORT was created so people didn't see the red link and get confused, and the template just calls the magic word. There's more on this and why the template shouldn't be used on Template talk:DEFAULTSORT.

Regarding the sorting you have been seeing, I don't know why people would sort like that, especially for a birth category; it might just be someone who is not familiar with the syntax for including categories and confusing it for that used for links. Some categories are sorted differently, but that is rare and would be consistent across most of the pages in the category, and in this case, I think it would be safe to change it. Hope that helps, matt br 21:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that helps quite a bit. I went back to try to clean up after myself and I see it already has been done. Thanks again! Happy Trails! Schmiteye 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of vandalism[edit]

From User talk:88.106.169.214 I am quite concerned. I can see that the following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massively_multiplayer_online_game&diff=next&oldid=110857922

was made by user:88.106.169.214, but it was not me. I was under the impression that I had a unique IP address from my ISP; clearly this is not the case. I notice that other edits that I have made from the same location (not logged in) bear the IP Address 88.106.214.198.

Any idea what I sould do and if/how I should pursue this. I am quite clear that the vandalism edit did not come from my computer, as I am the only one on these premises, hence the IP addess must be common from my ISP.

Concernedly User:TonyFleet-88.106.169.214 08:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, sorry for the late reply but I have been on a wikibreak. I would think each ISP does things differently so you are best trying to contact them to find out what the situation is regarding this, hopefully they should be able to tell you more. The editors at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing might also be able to help you further. Hope that helps, matt br 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adminship[edit]

Hi. Thanks for tagging all those talk pages. Of course, it would all be simpler if you had the delete button yourself. Ever thought of applying for adminshpip? Pascal.Tesson 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pascal, you're welcome, and having the button would be useful for the looooong list I have, and to prevent clogging up CSD! Adminship is something that has crossed my mind before, but I haven't felt confident enough that I would pass to nominate myself. Do you think it would be a good idea to run? matt br 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know if you would pass because I'm not sure I know much about you. But on the surface you look like a good candidate. If you're interested, I'll go over your contributions (later though) and if I'm happy with it all, I'll gladly nominate you. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested, thank you. There's no rush as I have just got back from a two-month wikibreak and I'm just getting back into it, so it might be best to hold off for a little bit if you feel I would be a good candidate. Thanks again, matt br 15:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

Pascal.Tesson would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Pascal.Tesson to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattbr. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Ok, so the above is the standard template. No rush for you to complete the nomination, just take the time to answer the optional questions and perhaps say a few words about yourself. When you're ready you can simply transclude the page at WP:RFA so that the fun can begin. Note that if you don't intend to do this right away, you should let me know so that I can update the edit stats on the talk page. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 20:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just remember to update the edit count before transcluding the nomination. Oh and for the next two weeks, please behave! :-) Pascal.Tesson 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn... You caught me offguard! Nominator is 14th on the list of supports, I hope that's not a record. Best of luck with the whole thing and if you run into a bunch of oppose votes, remember to breathe in and breathe out. I've got no reason to think this will happen but RfA is a strange beast and can be pretty frustrating if you worry too much about it. In any case, 14/0/0 is a pretty good start so knock on wood. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Just to let you know, I asked two questions in your RFA. Another user also asked you one. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 00:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "another user" is an understatement at this point. Shall we move your RfA to Wikipedia:Wikipedia policy examinations/Mattbr? ;) Gracenotes^T § 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Loppies Reply to mattbr[edit]

OK. I was thinking of the supporters as multiple - but the object of their obsession is, I accept, singular. Looked at that way, what you say is logical. Thanks for deleting it.

Academe 07:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help please[edit]

I inserted a British Asian actor on Preeya Kalidas. And signed the change - and my username's ended up in her imdb external link.

I can't see how it's happened in the edit panel - there's no trace of tildes in her link text.

As you've got a much better idea of what you're up to than do I, could you find the time to repair it please? Oh yes, and could you let me know how to fix it, please?

Academe 07:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Academe, when you type the four tildes and press save, they are automatically changed into a link to your userpage and the date and time you pressed the save button, so the tildes don't appear when you try to edit again, but your username and a timestamp do. You just need to find that and delete it like I have done here. Hope that helps explain, and just a reminder that signatures aren't placed in articles but your contributions are recorded in the article history. Cheers, matt br 10:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.

I was a bit paranoid about my username appearing, especially when I get into main obsession - economics of the ex-Soviet Union and countries dominated by the USSR - as I have used the academe username at RIA Novosti, the Kremlin Montsame news, Ulaanbataar...and so on to gather info to produce a quarterly academic review on media freedom, journalists' murders and the re-Stalinization of the Russian economy...and so on.

You can see why, with with that sort of obsession, I feel the need to mess around with things dramatic and reality telly etc. to almost keep me sane.

I'm afraid the Loppies was really doodle to stave off the horror of who killed Litvinenko?, Who killed Politkovskaya?, Who killed Safronov?...and so on. I ought to have doodled in Word and kept it on my network/deleted it.

--Academe 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. If you want to try things out on-wiki you can use the Wikipedia:Sandbox or you can create a subpage in your userspace, such as User:Academe/Sandbox, where material will not appear in the encyclopaedia. Also remember that your username will appear in the history of articles you edit and all your edits are recorded in your contributions, so please don't sign your contributions to articles. Thanks, matt br 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV Dynamo[edit]

Have many thanks for editing the Sportvereinigung Dynamo article. Thanks also for saving this article! --Kay Körner 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For fair support Kay Körner 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome, but my contribution to the article was very small and not really barnstar-worthy, but thank you anyway. matt br 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]