User talk:John of Reading/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up Arkansas Militia in the Civil War.Aleutian06 (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It was an accident! It just turned up in my current list of 3000+ articles from a database scan for "know as". -- John of Reading (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
But you also caught my 20+ misspellings of Captain. Pretty bad for a Lieutenant Colonel. Happy Checking! Aleutian06 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New to this..!

Thanks for your note about my editing of Whilton. I saw the article mention the kart track and thought I'd add a link to the website. Im not actually connected to the kart track business, and my adding of the website wasn't intended to be advertising, but I see how it might have looked that way now! Cheers Motoriety (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem! The rules on external links are much stricter than many editors realise. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome.

I just wanted to tell you that I am happy for your welcome and that it meant a lot to me. I do like being here, but I wondered if my contributions were even meaningful. Your welcome and thanks have given me new hope that perhaps what I do is meaningful for someone.

I might try to create articles one day, but now I am trying to correct typos and do some small grammar/punctuation fixes. I figured that it was probably better than nothing and at least it is something to do why I try to learn the rules.

Again, thank you. :) Panterdjuret (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's plenty to do here for everyone. Have you seen the "Help out" section at Wikipedia:Community portal? That's an overview of the many different ways that people join in at Wikipedia. I specialise in typos myself. Welcome again! -- John of Reading (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome banner

Hi

Thanks for spotting the typo - I am surprised that I did not catch that before, and it has gone on to many areas now so I am hoping it is not repeated in them all!

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the typo made it look more "human"? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John!

Thank you for your great refining of the article and your advice, John!!! I have contacted UDI Award (website is under construction and no promises for uploading awards before 2010) and Georgie Award (the award to Rafii Architects is registered under developer's name on their website), no clear answer yet. I am thinking of changing Awards column to another category called "Award winning projects" so the ones with Rafii design but registered under developer's name in awards page can be mentioned. What do you advice John? Or would you say the actual photos of awards showing Rafii Architects on it can be posted as an evidence or it is not the right approach. P.S. - I am not sure if this is the right place to post my talks with you. if not, please lead me and thank you again for bearing with me and my baby steps in becoming a wikipedian!...I tried to preview and save! it looks strange!:( oh well! pishoo (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)pishoopishoo (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The easy question first - yes, this is exactly the right place to leave me a message. If I'm online, I'll get the "You have new messages" banner as soon as I jump to a new page. But I think you signed your message with about eight "~" characters - four is usual.
I'm not familiar with the industry, but it seems to me that an award given to a project is less impressive than an award given to the architect. If the project wins an award, does that mean the credit is somehow shared out among the architects, builders, material suppliers, landscapers... ? You might do well to move the awards out of the infobox into a new section of the article, so that they are not so cramped, and the infobox is not so long.
Documenting the awards - the best evidence for the awards would be coverage in independent news sources such as mainstream newspapers ("Rafii Architects win the Xyz Award for the Pqr Tower"). This would help the article to pass the notability test; currently it's relying on the one Vancouver Sun reference for that. Failing that kind of coverage, the next best would be a link to a relevant page at the website of the organisation making the award. I don't think you should bother to upload photos of the awards; I've never seen that done. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Your "preview" looked strange because you'd started a paragraph with a space. I've removed it. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks John! i will follow your recommendations about awards soon, today. in addition to that; i just moved those paragraphs related to his education from career column to education column and moved the line about The Vancouver Sun from the first paragraph to the end of career column. would you please see if you agree with that? pishoo (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved the "Vancouver Sun" sentence to the lead paragraph to make a more punchy start to the article. "John Doe is a Canadian arm-wrestler (So what?) He won the gold medal at the 2010 Olympics (Ah, that's why he's in the encyclopedia!)". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). -- John of Reading (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right John. The Vancouver Sun statement will be moved back.pishoo (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Red/blue link

Hello John.

The Tibor Benedek who was born in Mikolc, Hungary, was an actor that lived 1911-1963. The Tibor Benedek we have in the English wikipedia is a water polo player born 1982 in Budapest. They are obviously not the same person. So if the Portal:People requires blue links only, I suggest that we remove the Benedek entry, since it leads to the wrong person, not born in Mikolc.

Cheers

HandsomeFella (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thank you for explaining this. Please remove the name that doesn't belong. Can I suggest you fill in the Edit summary box more often so that other editors don't have to guess? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct, I should've done that. Btw, it seems the water polo player TB is a grandson of the actor TB, if I interpret what the Hungarian wikipedia says (Hungarian is not one of my languages).
Cheers HandsomeFella (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(In case you're not watching for me to post) CTJF83 16:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at the help desk -- John of Reading (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Ankit Maity's talk page.
Message added 12:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I wrote about my new editor experience

Hi,

I wrote something at Wikipedia talk:Wiki Guides/What was your new user experience. I tried my best to give correct information, using what I remember and looking at old talk pages and edit summaries. It actually feel much better now that I have written that. Thanks so much. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All Around Amazing Barnstar
If someone here on Wikipedia deserves this award, then it is you. Thanks for letting me write down my story, that felt .... I miss the words to describe it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


I don't think I "let you" write it down, I just pointed you at a good page for doing it :-) But thank you for this splendid barnstar; for today, at least, I will think of myself as "All Around Amazing" -- John of Reading (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Straightening out the reference on A. J. Casson Award‎

Thank you.Naraht (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

E-mail confirmation problem- explanation

I went to the main help page for e-mail confirmation.

On "my preferences," the only e-mail it shows is the dead mail. When I go to "Special:ConfirmEmail", it says "A confirmation code has already been e-mailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code. You must validate your e-mail address in order to use e-mail features. Click the button below to send a confirmation e-mail to your address. Then, follow the instructions in the e-mail. To check whether you have already confirmed, please see your preferences."

I waited a few minutes, then refreshed the window; the only mail I saw under my account was the dead mail. I don't know what I'm doing wrong.--KellyLeighC (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What happens when you enter the new email at "My preferences" and then press the "Save" button at the bottom? -- John of Reading (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yike. I'm sorry, I didn't see a "save" button until I looked a second ago. I tried it again this time. Sorry if I'm being a pain about all of this, I'm just mixed up. KellyLeighC (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries! That's what the "help" and "assistance" pages are for. Feel free to ask questions here if you get stuck again. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried those two pages first, but couldn't find anything about a "save" button. I thought it saved the address automatically. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. KellyLeighC (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ok

No problem.Mannix mannix (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John

Would you please have a look at Foad Rafii for the new link I have added today?/ Thank you!Thank you! pishoo (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tidied it up. Notice that if a reference provides the evidence for more than one part of the article, you can give it a name and then use it in both places. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks john! i am learning a lot from you!pishoo (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mario Soares Poacher?

Why on earth did you include poacher on Mario Soares professions?

here

That is pure vandalism...I am confused.Luis v silva (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't me! Here's the diff of the change I made, which I hope you will agree is constructive. The "poacher" profession was added in this edit dated 18 June 2010. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

HD

Do you know of anyone who can assist Wikipedia_talk:HD#Edit_notice? CTJF83 22:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly asked TheDJ (talk · contribs) for help. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
...but that didn't work. I don't won't to spam the request anywhere else. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you know of anyone else I may SPAM for assistance? CTJF83 11:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking through Category:User js-5 the only name I recognise is Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs). I've never had contact with him, as far as I can remember. I expect most of the people with the right skills are already watching WP:VPT. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, CTJF83 11:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've spent the morning on this, and have had some success. See User:John of Reading/Sandbox and User:John of Reading/vector.css. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for your help!...so, is it working, or still testing? CTJF83 12:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's ready for testing, in the sense that it would be a good idea for people to view this sandbox page with various browsers, with JavaScript on or off, and with the MySkin.css hack installed and not installed. But I don't think it can go live while still mis-using the "catlinks-allhidden" class. I'll ask at WP:VPT about that. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you much! CTJF83 12:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey there.

Hey there.Sorry I didn't respond to you in about one month and thanks for telling me about my reverts.Thanks for telling me that.Looks like the IP address was blocked already for I don't know about what month he is blocked.Anyway, thanks for telling me that.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK -- John of Reading (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

John????

Need your help!-I tried to add citations to the article Foad Rafii & on top of that i needed to repeat citations numbers 9 and 10 where now it shows 11 and 12. what i did is,i copied and pasted exactly the same ref hoping it will show under the same numbers BUT it added new ref numbers! i do not know how to repeat old ones without adding new numbers! would you please help me with that/! thank you! Oh, another question John; how many more citation will be needed till the article falls under verified ones? I mean what is wikipedia's scale/ measure for accepting an article as verified? pishoo (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Yobot, one of the automated background programs, has dealt with the repeated citations already! The method is described at WP:NAMEDREFS. Your other question is more tricky, and, to be honest, I'm not very good at judging it myself. There are two inter-related issues, verifiability and notability:
Verifiability means that anyone reading that page should be able to ask "How do I know this is true?", and be able to check by following up the references. (For online references, you can imagine the reader clicking through to the referenced web page, but for offline references you have to imagine the reader getting hold of the book/newspaper/whatever somehow. That's ok). In the Foad Rafii article, the "Education" and "Career" sections have some unverifiable information; it's clear that you are writing with some inside knowledge of the person. In theory, someone could delete these sentences, and then you wouldn't be permitted to put them back without a reference - see WP:BURDEN. This is not unusual for a Wikipedia article, but is worth fixing if you can. It would be ok to add references to Mr Rafii's own website for this sort of uncontroversial biographical detail, if the detail was there somewhere.
Notability means that anyone reading the page should be able to ask "Why is this page in the encyclopedia?", and be able to see from the references that reliable sources, independent of Mr Rafii, have thought it worthwhile to write about him - see WP:BASIC. I think the article isn't quite there yet; you have one-and-a-bit reliable sources writing about the person (Vancouver Sun, and canada.com quoting the Vancouver Sun), plus others that mention only the company. If you can dig out more press coverage, you should add it to the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, WoW! so thorough!!! I do appreciate your help and indeed what you are doing for wikipedia John. i will follow through and do me best.pishoo (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I need your comments on my questionnaire

I have just prepared an online questionnaire for a study on "motivation to contribute to Wikipedia." Please visit the online form and give me some comments on the online form. cooldenny (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you've only sent your message to a couple of users, I'm assuming you are looking for feedback about the questionnaire, rather than just asking me to answer the questions. Generally, I'm afraid that my overall impression is that this is a machine translation of something written in another language. Many of the questions read strangely and/or are hard to understand.
  • Page 1, the first four questions seem to be asking the same thing
  • What do you mean by "the articles"? Which articles? Do you mean "make 10 edits" or "make edits to 10 different articles"? Do you mean to exclude non-article pages such as talk pages?
  • I am a WikiGnome. In the next 30 days I will probably make around 4,000 edits to 3,800 different articles. For some Wikipedia editors, it is almost meaningless to ask them about "10 edits".
  • Page 2, bad/good seems very vague
  • Page 3, "helps improving" should be "helps to improve", and similarly elsewhere
  • Page 4, "by small people"??? Do you mean "young people"?
  • Page 5, "the probability of extremely difficult job being able to completed only by the collective." I can't even guess what this is supposed to mean
  • Page 6, "the probability of me earning the official power endowed by the Wikipedia through my contribution." Again, I don't understand the question
  • Page 7, I don't see the difference between the last three questions
  • Page 8, in the first question you ask for a number of days, 0-30. The next two questions seem to be redundant.
  • The list of user rights omits "Confirmed" and has several spelling mistakes
  • The "age range" choices seem strange: 0-20, 21-26, 27-30, 31+. Do you really not want to distinguish 32-year-olds from 75-year-olds?
  • One of the "Education" choices includes the extra word "Avobe"
I'm sorry to have to respond with so many negative comments, but you did ask. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your valuable comments on the questionnaire. Your comments are really helpful for my research. I can tell you about what you could not understand in the questionnaire as follows.
  • Page 1, I know that the four questions are redundant. Using redundant questions is a typical method used in social science research because only one question could not exactly what a researcher want to measure.
  • "the articles" means only the article pages, excluding its talk page and other namespace pages such as user page and its talk page. In the questionnaire, "edit ... 10 times" means "make 10 edits", not "make eidits to 10 different articles." However, "edits to 10 differenct articles" is a good idea, so I would like to consider changing the expression after thinking sufficiently.
  • I will change the items according to your comments on the questions. Thanks.
  • Page 2, I also know that bad/good is very vague. However, I want to use the expression because the expression is a typical one used in social science studies for a long time.
  • Page 3, I have changed "helps improving" into "helps to improve."
  • Page 4, "by small people"??? It means "small number of people." I had changed.
  • Page 5, "the probability of extremely difficult job being able to completed only by the collective." I would like to write as follows. "Wikipeida is a extremly difficult job, which is completed by only large number of people, the collective. the probability of Wikipedia success will increases when I contribute." Please give a good statement for what I would like to write, if you do not mind.
  • Page 6, "the probability of me earning the official power endowed by the Wikipedia through my contribution." means that "the probability of that I earn the official power, which is endowed by the Wikipedia, will increase through my contribution." I changed.
  • Page 7, a typical method using redundant questions
  • Page 8, a typical method using redundant questions
  • I cannot find "Confirmed" in the page of Wikipedia:User_access_levels. What you mean is "Autoconfirmed"?, and then please let me know the specific spelling mistakes in the page.
  • The "age range" is from 2008 FYI results on age range
  • Do you mean that "Avobe" is "Above Doctoral Degree"?
Thanks again. cooldenny (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's see...

  • Page 5 Something like "Wikipedia will be enhanced by my contribution to its collective work" ???
  • Page 6 What "official power" do you have in mind? Is this a reference to the extra user rights?
  • Page 8 Actually there are only two spelling errors: Steward, Reviewer. Yes, add "Autoconfirmed" as well.
  • Age range: It looks to me that those researchers asked for the exact age and then calculated 18, 22 and 30 as the quartiles. But it's your questionnaire, so by all means ask for the figures you want for your own analysis.
  • "Avobe" - I didn't spot that "Avobe" was a typo for "Above". It needs fixing.

-- John of Reading (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John of Reading. I followed your comments on the questionnaire.
  • Page 5 I replaced the previous statment with "Wikipedia will be enhanced by my contribution to its collective work."
  • Page 6 "official power" means "the extra user rights." Thus, I changed the word into what you said.
  • Page 8 I made two spelling errors, Steward and Reviewer correct. I added "Autoconfirmed User" as well.
  • Age range: I changed the previous range-qeustion into open-queston.
  • I deleted the word, "Avobe."

--- cooldenny (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I invite you to a short survey about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." cooldenny (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Link fix on my article - Alex Smith (footballer born 1985)

Hi there. Just browsing the page, and i noticed you fixed the NSW Premier League link in the reference. Could you teach me how to do it? It's so annoying trying to reference, and the URL screws it up. Cheers. Nath1991 (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

URLs containing certain characters will display and link incorrectly unless those characters are encoded. For example, a space must be replaced by %20.

sp " ' , ; < > ? [ ]
%20 %22 %27 %2c %3b %3c %3e %3f %5b %5d
Single apostrophes do not need to be encoded; multiples will be parsed as italic or bold markup

The link button on the enhanced editing toolbar will encode a link.

The URL must start with a supported URI scheme. http:// and https:// are always supported. gopher://, irc://, ircs://, ftp://, news:// and mailto: will create a link and an icon but require an agent registered in the browser.

This is the handy table from {{HD/url}}. The "official" help page is here. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate, that's very helpful :). Now to start the painful process of editing all the articles with messed up links. :) Nath1991 (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-Project help

Hi John, Per the discussion here [1]

please see this: [2]

This complicated B rating system has been a major headache. Thank you --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made the edit. Any problems, you know where the "undo" button is! -- John of Reading (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

More to the answer

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Message added 12:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Extra-user rights and how to find an article for editing

Hi John of Reading,

I have listed up some extra-user rights at my talk page. However, more access right to functions exists when looking at Wikipedia:User_right. Let me know whether the major user right relevant to user's editing volume is not included, and please categorize the rights if you do not mind. cooldenny (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've found most of the user rights by reading WP:User right. A couple of corrections: a new page patroller is a voluntary job, needing no extra rights. All users have the ability to undo edits; the difference is that a rollbacker is trusted to do it with a single mouse click.
I know of one other access control that is not mentioned at WP:User right - the AutoWikiBrowser tool has its own access control list at WP:AWB/CP. Typically, you have to make at least 500 article edits before you are given access to this tool. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I also summarized the ways to find an article for editing at my talk page. Please let me know another ways you are actually doing or know cooldenny (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks thorough. I use two other methods: you can also do Wikipedia searches by clicking on a link; you can find lists of these links at WP:Lists of common misspellings. And using the AWB tool I can scan a database dump for a precise search. For example, you can't use any ordinary search to find articles that have spelt "january" with a lowercase "j". -- John of Reading (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. all your comments are reflected into the questionnaire. cooldenny (talk)

A portal

are you see defects in this portal [3].Jamal Nazareth (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the formatting a bit. I suggest you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran to attract helpers who know the subject. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/RFA.
Message added 07:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you! — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-union violence

Thanks sincerely for that quick edit. I appreciate it.

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry this issue has caused you so much hassle. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it has been an occasional editing hassle (several times a year, i'd say) for the past four years. But the worst part of it, i think, is having my concerns dismissed out of hand by those very editors who had jumped into the middle of half-finished articles and compressed the footnotes without any discussion or notice. I think that's why i'm so adamant to make this group of editors understand the impact of this practice on at least some of us.
And i hope they will now be more flexible, after a robust discussion. I don't know how it will turn out, and i'd be open to some sort of compromise, but i feel better after having finally made an issue out of it. If i go down in flames in the discussion, at least i tried my best... ;-) And i've thrown off my hesitation to revert, so i think that is a step forward.
I really appreciate when a fellow editor offers a little kindness over these dust-ups. Makes it all worthwhile. Thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Whoops, sorry, I don't know why the script credited you as the author :S —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:52pm • 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Next time I'll know to edit the banner after it is subst'd. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

schools

Hi John of Reading/Archive 3. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities or other degree awarding institutions.
If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Help

Thanks for pointing this out John. Being an expert at template construction is not a prerequisite for being an editor, and it's something I admit to not being very good at. Could you fix it for me? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "preload" parameter. Was that the right fix? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the button seems to doing what it is supposed to - which it did before. Funny how you noticed that bit of code though. I cribbed it off another template and thought I was supposed to change the destination page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
If a button has "preload=SOMEPAGE" and "SOMPEPAGE" exists, then the contents of that page will be loaded into the edit window. I've seen it used at {{db-meta}} for the new "Contest this speedy deletion" button. Good luck with the new help page, anyway. I've added it to my watchlist. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Right, now I understand perfectly, simply because by coincidence I was involved in drafting the template that is called to the talk page by the CSD template. As there isn't one in this case, because the page to populate is the same one, it is superfluous. Handy to know though. Thanks again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Second draft questionnaire

Thankyou, User:Cooldenny, for your email. I thought it best to reply here since your talk page is rather busy. This new draft is much better than the first. The English is more natural and the questions are mostly easy to understand.

Typos and suggested changes to wording

First page

  • "their their" > "their"
  • "winner under his/her user ID" > "winner in his/her user name"
  • "there is no foreseeable risks" > "there are no foreseeable risks"
  • "or choosing the lottery winners" > "and choose the lottery winners"
  • "why people contributed to Wikipedia" > "why people contribute to Wikipedia"
  • "Each person's attendance" > "Each person's answers" (?)
  • "to dedicated the time" > "to dedicate the time"

Second page

  • (DA4) "worth pursuing to help" > "worthwhile to help" (?)
  • (DB4) "in terms of acheiving" > "to achieve" (?)
  • (DC4) "does NOT matter make much difference" > "does not matter" OR "does not make much difference"
  • (DF3) "their topics" > "these topics"
  • (B) "I intent to" > "I intend to" (three occurrences of this)
  • (B1-4) Inconsistent punctuation at the start of these questions
  • (2) "within one minute" > "less than one minute"

Other suggestions

Throughout: I think you should refer to the "user name" not the "user ID". If you go to "My preferences" you will see that your "user ID" is an 8-digit number. This isn't what you mean.

"Wikipedia users or those who have not yet registered to Wikipedia" should be "Wikipedia users, both registered and unregistered". Someone who uses the site but has not registered is still a 100% Wikipedia user.

"contact us at the email address or phone number below" - most Wikipedia users would prefer to contact you by leaving a message on your talk page.

"share this page's link" - this could lead to you getting a biassed sample? Only those with strong opinions would bother to share the link.

Question DA4 - This question needs to be clearer, as I'm not sure what you have in mind here. Some guesses to be going on with: making sure that Wikipedia pages can be used by those who are colour-blind or use screen-reader software; providing cheap laptops to areas of the world where resources are scarce; improving Internet connectivity where web access is poor; improving access to Wikipedia in parts of the world where web access is censored. If these aren't what you have in mind, you need to re-word the question.

Questions B1-4 - The differences between these questions are very subtle. Are you trying to ask about people making contributions to Wikipedia that don't involve making edits to pages? (eg offline research in libraries; the volunteers at OTRS who mostly work by email)

Question A / AA / 1 - To judge from the choice of answers, I think your question should be "On how many days in each month do you edit pages on Wikipedia, on average". My answer to the exact question "how often do you edit pages on Wikipedia per month" is "about 5,000 times", which doesn't fit in with the possible answers.

Question AB. A registered user can get this information more easily by going to "My preferences". For unregistered users this question needs more work. First problem: The "X! Edit Counter" tool does work if you type an IP address into the "user name" box, but somehow you are going to have to tell an unregistered user how to get hold of his/her IP address. Second problem: IP addresses may change by the minute / hour / day / week, depending on the ISP, and/or may be shared by multiple computers on a home/office sub-network. Thus the figures shown by the tool for an IP address will typically bear no relation to the edit count made by the person filling in the questionnaire. I suggest that you tell unregistered users to skip this question, and tell registered users to get the information from their preferences.

I hope this is helpful! Have you worked out how you are going to deliver this questionnaire?

-- John of Reading (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Cooldenny's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

cooldenny (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Three more emails

Here are replies to your three new emails:

  • "worth pursuing" - the first version of question DA4 needed correcting, but your other questions that use the phrase "is worth pursuing" are OK as they stand.
  • DA4 replacement - I like the new version of DA4 with another Jimbo quote; that is much clearer, and fits nicely with the others.
  • AA2 rewrite - I had no problem with the original version of AA2; your other suggestions are equally clear. Take your pick.
  • Edit count - I like the idea of asking for the "number of unique pages edited", but if you want it then your respondents will have to use the tool. So you should take out the sentences "You can get the information from your preference page" and "You can get the information only form X!’s Edit Counter".

-- John of Reading (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Monday email

You've emailed me as follows:

I made one more questoin about the number of article a user edited as follows: "In how many days do you contribute to a new Wikipedia article you have not edit, on average?" In the questoin, I would like to know the speed of the unique number of the edited articl by him/her. If you have better expression, please let me know it.

Unfortunately I can't work out what you mean here, despite your explanation. I suggest you look at Special:Contributions/John of Reading or Special:Contributions/Cooldenny and use those to work out the answer to your question, as if you or I were answering the questionnaire. If you post back here with the answer and a description of the steps you went through to get to the answer, then I'll have a much better idea of how to word the question clearly. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry my wrting makes you confused. After reading your comments on the qustion statement, we thought our qustion contains wrong and confusing expressoin. After our considerable thinkg, we attains to the conclusion that we can get what we would like to measure by calculating total number of unique articles edited by an user over "Wikipedian age". I really appreciate you. cooldenny (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, and thank you for your appreciation. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Monterey Bay (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - yes, it was a good day. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ionic... article

Hi! I've reverted your latest addition at Temple of Caesar, though ain't sure. I think that the "I" in "Ionic" is a semi-vowel, so it takes "a" before, not "an". What do you think? Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "an" is right. My SOED says the word is pronounced ei-o-nik, three syllables. Also, compare the results of a Wiki-search for "a Ionian" and "an Ionian" (it's no use searching for "ionic" itself, as that finds a bunch of chemistry articles). Still, I'll leave it and press on with the rest of my list. I'm using a database dump to compile lists of articles containing "a [[foo|bar]]" where "bar" begins with a vowel. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang on button

Hi John. Thanks for the past help! Seems there's a bug with the speedy deletion button when the title has html encoding. Any idea about how to fix this?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

John?...

would you please have a look at the new changes in Foad Rafii article? would you please tell me if this type of references are acceptable for wikipedia....happy easterpishoo (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Now I know you are an employee/friend/associate of Mr Rafii, whereas before I was only 99% certain! But yes, I think these references are good enough, since it is highly unlikely that anyone would challenge them. Happy Easter to you also. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right john I know Mr. Rafii very well. we are both architects and both our ancestors are from deserts of Iran. I tried to get references by challenging him to dig some old materials out. I tried as well to get his permission to mention about his father who was a pilot 65 years ago and who lost his life by flying damaged airplanes from Iran to Germany to be fixed, something that nobody else would do, but he doe’s not have any references for that. Anyway I am very thankful for your step-by-step lead, help, and support in a very amazing way. And I highly respect wikipedia and am amazed how this extreme freedom for contributors works without its precious values to be compromised.pishoo (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the next challenge for you: the Vancouver Sun article said that Mr Rafii is "one of the ten..." - who are the other nine? Did they attract enough reliable, independent press coverage to support a Wikipedia article? ;-) John of Reading (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

love the challenge! :) i will look into it and let you know!pishoo (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

john, only one of them was on the wikipedia James K. M. Cheng. and yes it seems most of them are noatable with good press coverage. i will upload the scanned page and the article from The Vancouve Sun and go from there. pishoo (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello John, i have added couple of Categories to the Article Foad Rafii- all together 10 I beleive. is that enough to bring the article out of orphanage??? ;) -my next article would be about Paul Merrick.pishoo (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Happy birthday dear John!!!!! :) may today and every single day of your life be special!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabellapishoo (talk • contribs) 07:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes! I enjoyed the day.
Categories are good, but they are not relevant for the "Orphan" notice. That is asking you to think about adding links to Foad Rafii from other Wikipedia articles. So far, this list of articles only mentions one article that links to Foad Rafii; to remove the {{Orphan}} tag you need three or more. Do any of the buildings/projects have Wikipedia articles that you could cross-link? But don't worry too much about this one, as there are thousands of orphaned articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that is the way it works! Thank you John! Doe's the article need to have his name in it or just the name of relevant project is enough?pishoo (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article would need to mention his name, so that you can stick the square brackets round it to make it a blue link - [[Foad Rafii]]. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John!!!!!!!:) what would i do without you and your thorough help!!!!!!!!....and the article is not orphan anymore!!!!! :)pishoo (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

About Santa Barbara Tax Products Group

Hi John of R, and thanks for your message,
You wrote:

Hi! You left a {{Welcomespam}} at User talk:EC Cyclopedia, and the editor has responded with a {{helpme}}. Can you answer there? The article Santa Barbara Tax Products Group doesn't look too bad to me, but I'm no expert in this kind of thing.

To be quite honest, I did this purely to avoid WP:BITEiness; quite frankly a WP:G11 tag may have resulted in the article being speedied. I am in no way shapes or sizes an expert in this kind of thing.
(I'm a fan of very dark crime fiction, but the only books that have ever given me nightmares are Beloved, Once Were Warriors, and Joe Cinque's Consolation... oh, and the textbook "Australian Corporations Law: Cases and materials (Fourth edition)" or whatever it was called - I've tried to block that trauma from memory.)
All that said, I will try my best to help out User:EC Cyclopedia. Please do check up on my efforts; feedback, good or otherwise, most appreciated. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I've since spotted that the cited Wall Street Journal page doesn't mention the Santa Barbara company, so I've added a couple of tags to the article and will keep an eye on it. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
And thank you! I still don't think I've properly addressed User:EC Cyclopedia's valid concerns. Achtung Baby, I'll be watching to see how this whole thing turns out.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Foad Rafii pictures

(I've broken this off into a new section)

john!, me again! i have couple of photos from different projects which were mentioned on Foad Rafii wikipedia article. those photos are taken by Mr. Rafii himself and some of them by one of his employee at his office. They have no problem with those photos to be uploaded on the page. i have checked the page about uploading files from someone else.To upload, the areas below should be filled and it is asking for some clarifications as follows, and i am not sure how to answer them. 

|Description    = 
|Source         = 
|Date           = 19:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
|Author         = 
|Permission     = 
|other_versions =

As for Description; i will get the information about subject of the photo which is a building and will write it- for source; i am not sure what exactly should be clarified in here - for date; day and month is approximate but year is for sure- As for author; i think it means the name of the photographer, right?- for permission; they have no problem for their work to be uploaded but what do i say here to confirm that?- and as for other version; again i am not sure what it exactly means here.pishoo (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say I have seen your question but am too sleepy to answer it fully now. It would be easier if Mr Rafii uploaded the pictures himself. If you do it, you will still have to get Mr Rafii to send an email to Wikipedia to confirm that he is happy about it. Wikipedia editors are constantly trying to upload other people's pictures here without going through the permission steps, and they all get deleted! More tomorrow. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me try again. First, I don't think "project" pictures belong in the Foad Rafii article. The article title and text show that this is supposed to be an article about the person not the company or its projects. A picture of the "Xyz Building" doesn't say much about the life of Mr Rafii. Anyone seeing this page and wanting to know more can click through to the company website and see lots of pictures there. Remember that you are writing an encyclopedia article, not an extension of the Foad Rafii website.
But, to attempt an answer to your question about the {{Information}} template, I think it would go something like this...
|Description    = The Xyz Building, Vancouver, viewed from the south west
|Source         = By email to me from Mr Foad Rafii, the photographer OR the copyright holder (depending)
|Date           = 19:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
|Author         = Foad Rafii architects
|Permission     = To be confirmed by email to OTRS
|other_versions = leave blank unless you are also uploading other versions of the same picture, eg a cropped version
...and you would also need to include the {{OTRS pending}} template. This tells "the system" (another bunch of overworked volunteers) to watch out for an email from Mr Rafii to confirm that he is giving away some or all of his copyright-holder's rights in this picture. You would then have to get Mr Rafii to send an email to Wikipedia following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. This looks complicated to me! The real copyright experts live at WP:MCQ, so if my answer isn't clear enough then you should ask there.
The problem, of course, is that many, many, Wikipedia editors get hold of a picture from somewhere and upload it claiming that they have permission from the copyright holder. There has to be a robust system in place to ensure that the claims are genuine and that improperly-uploaded pictures are deleted. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

John, thank you so very much for your feedback, thoughts, advices and thorough instruction as usual! You definitely are a very dedicated, overworked volunteer. You got back to me although it was so late at night. Your point of view about photos of buildings in article is totally valid however I was trying to keep consistency in the layout by following a repeated pattern through looking into the articles about architects in Wikipedia and looked at couple of famous ones known to me like - Moshe Safdie & Arthur Erickson- and some Iranian ones like Hossein Amanat - Fariborz Sahba & farshid Mousavi and noticed all of them had couple of work samples (photos) which would show their style of design. I have compared these articles with those with no photos in them and sure the ones with photos were more expresive of who those people were and the articles were more animated and less boaring. So, that is why I am trying to upload some photos of the designs. I will folow your adivices and see how far I can go! One more compliment john; i am a very non technical person who never reads manuals and instructions but could folow your instructions sucssesfully!!! ;)pishoo (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

Thanks a lot John. I'll start expanding as many stubs as I have references for. It'll be South Asia mostly since that's where I am. Pratik Gupte (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your post down to the bottom, since that's how talk pages usually work here. Another thought: have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds for style guidelines and such like. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I wasn't sure where thank you notes fitted in so I just hung it on a long list of similar notes. I've looked at Project Birds and they have several agendas, all of which are more pressing than expanding stubs. But since I'm an amateur (not only at editing Wikipedia but also at birding), I thought that this was probably the best way to add to pages. Their guidelines have been really precise. I do have another question: Is it okay to upload images from the Oriental Bird Images database as long as I state their origin and copyright holders? I'm sure this is covered in some section on media copyrights but after a while all the pages begin to blur. Pratik Gupte (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean http://orientalbirdimages.org/ ? The small print on that page says the copyright is held by the individual photographers, and "If you wish to use these photos for any purpose, you must obtain their permission first", so I'm afraid that those can't be used here. Even if you asked photographer X for permission to use picture Y at Wikipedia, that wouldn't be good enough. This is covered at Wikipedia:Image use policy, but I agree there's too much detail there for a newcomer. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah well... I thought it sounded too easy. I do know quite a few bird photographers however and I suppose I could get them to contribute their images themselves. They love showing their pics. The thing is that "stubby" birds are usually not seen even by really good birders. And so for such birds photos are even rarer than info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratik Gupte (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello John of R. I got started and added some text to the article Abbott's Babbler. Could you have a look at it and tell me what you think? The stub tag is still there though. Pratik Gupte (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should post at Wikipedia Talk:Wikiproject Birds to get it reviewed by a expert. Miscellaneous comments from me:
  • Because I don't have the books, I can't tell how closely the text matches the sources; you have to use your own words to avoid copyright violations.
  • You have added facts without saying where you got them from - there are three sources at the bottom, but nothing to say which facts came from which sources. I saw you were experimenting with <ref> tags earlier; that's what you should be using in your new text. See Help:Citing sources.
  • Do other bird articles link technical terms such as "vent", "supercilium" and such like? I don't know what a "supercilium" is, but if you link it, [[supercilium]], it turns into a clickable link to a full explanation: supercilium.
  • I'd prefer to see the text use complete sentences. I have edited the article.
  • The "stub" notice is generated by the line {{Timaliidae-stub}} near the bottom of the article. There's no firm rule about classifying an article as a stub - see Help:Stub - but I think you've added enough to remove the notice. When you do that, also remove the blank lines above and belong below it.
Looks good! -- John of Reading (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks J of R. I'll put it past the guys at Project Birds.Pratik Gupte (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

my error

Yes, this[4] was a test edit, to see if I encoded {{subst:uc:$1}} in AWB, it would actually convert l.c. input at $1 to u.c. And it did - I just forgot to revert it. Sorry! — kwami (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:The Apprentice UK candidate list

Thank you for the fix! I was unaware such a thing existed. I appreciate the help. —D'Ranged 1 talk 22:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I am head of a class of 32 children that are using Wikipedia for my Computer class. They are just experimenting in articles for an upcoming essay regarding Wikipedia and Freedom of Speech. Thank you for your acceptance and understanding. --MrPurcellsClass (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

They must use separate accounts. See WP:NOSHARE. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:: It is lunch time now, so my pupils wont be editing for another half an hour. All of my pupils are using my own account as agreed when I e-mailed Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales last Thursday. Thanks for your acceptance of my viewpoint and your agreement between me and you regarding this situation. Thank You. --MrPurcellsClass (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Table of contents

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

21:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:165.132.123.82 == User:Haldersj

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at DanielPenfield's talk page.
Message added 07:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AWB

Would it be possible for you to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/Watchlist#Articles and remove all the * [[: ]] and then save the results to User:Ctjf83/Sandbox? It would be a lot easier for AWB to do it then me, thanks, CTJF83 00:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Actually I used WikiEd for this, not AWB. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! CTJF83 11:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas Militia in the Civil War

Could you take a look at this article Arkansas Militia in the Civil War There are two new sections that could use your attention, Militia Operations Fall 1861 and Militia Operations after the fall of Little Rock. Thanks!Aleutian06 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Also an AWB spell-fixing run for "captiol". -- John of Reading (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
THANKS! Aleutian06 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

copyediting Refah Tragedy

Hi! I appreciate much your efforts for copyediting the article Refah Tragedy, which I have nominated for DYK entry. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your post at WP:EAR. Another two or three sections to go... -- John of Reading (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
So who did it, then? Two paragraphs say it was France and one says it was Italy. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bo idea. Confusion. No one claimed responsibility. Only suggestions or allegetions.CeeGee (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for map formatting help

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

that was exactly what I needed 66.220.113.98 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have helped. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

help

Thank you for you welcome message that you left me. I wanted to ask you how I can move a complete draft of a new Wikipedia page to the main stream? I have already saved it in my sandbox, but it still does not appear on WIkipedia. Thank youi for your help in advance. (Senior Consultant (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC))

Once you have been registered for four days and have made ten edits (four more needed), you will be able to move the page yourself. The instructions for this are at Help:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page. BUT your page User:Senior Consultant/draft fidelis needs work before it can be moved safely. As it stands I suspect the article would be deleted quickly. As mentioned in the various replies to your question at the Help desk:
I suggest you work through the FAQ page for businesses and organsiations. Feel free to ask again here if you still have questions. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Macula risk

Hi John of Reading,

I work in Marketing

I work with the folks at Macula Risk, I have sent in a request that appears to comply to all the weird acronyms associated with compliance to trademark rights, I have had an Email sent from someone at the domain @arcticdx.com to indeed agree to the text in the posting.

I have no idea how to get the person who put the block on the page in the first place (presidentman? I have no idea- I do not understand this horrible interface and all the odd ways this system works and cannot comprehend it) to unblock this.

Someone (in good faith- but arbitrarily) put a block on this and I need help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbelgraver (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Macula Risk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emails to permissions-en@wikimedia.org are dealt with by the volunteers in the Volunteer Response Team. I have no idea how long their queues are, I'm afraid. Once they have received and logged the permission they will stick a note at Talk:Macula Risk and unblank the article.
But in some ways it is a pity that the copyright issue was spotted first, because this isn't the only problem with the article by any means. Wikipedia articles must demonstrate that their topic is notable enough to be part of an encyclopedia. To do this it needs references to reliable sources such as books, newspapers and trusted websites, to show that other people have found the topic interesting enough to write about it.
Also, since you are involved in marketing the product, you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not an advertising outlet, and Wikipedia articles are not normally written by or for the companies they mention. Please work your way down the FAQ page for organisations, which will explain all this more clearly than I can. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

John,

Let's go through your points one at a time 1) Permissions- OK, they will get to it whenever they get to it (they still haven't) 2) Notable topic- the only complete genetic test that can predict whether or not early vision problems related to age related macular degeneration may progress to blindness. Macular degenration is the leading cause of blindness in the western wolrd. I admit to bias, but a hell of a lot more interesting than the Britney Spears' children, or the behaviour of 4th century Byzantine monks and a lot of other content that is allowed in wiki?

3) References- I guess the 16 or so avademic references provided on the page (note: the company did not sponsor or be involved in a single one of these studies) isnt good enough? Journal like JAMA, AMA, and IOVS are the top academic journals...A little better than books, newspapers (Rupert Murdoch owns several of those and look how 'un-biased' his garbage is, and trusted websites (I can set one of those up in a jiffy)

4) If I had a clue where the FAQ for organizations page even is in this Orwellian system, I would certainly appreciate it

5) The company in question did not sponsor any of the reseatch. It was all done by independent academic labs. I can send you a copy of the paper that describes the independent analysis of the genes used in the test. Tufts university is not some third rate Ph.D mill that allows academics to prosper.

Behaviour here is more police like than most- People tell me what I can't do, no one tells me what I can do and need to do....

Gerry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbelgraver (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything shown in blue in my advice above is a clickable link to a Wikipedia page. So you can get to the FAQ page for organisations by clicking here: FAQ page for organisations. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

John,

Thank you for the link. Can you please explain to me, based upon your insights of what is acceptable in wiki-land, what specific elements of the page I created, contravene which element of which regulation?

I am not trying to be bureaucratic, but I simply have no idea what element in what paragraph is misleading, false or promotional. in my opinion, they are simply factual/verifiable. My intent is to create/edit the pages related to the specific genetic alleles assayed in the Macula Risk test (CFH, C3, ARMS2 and ND2) as well as all the other significant genes that have been shown (note: no studies performed OR sponsored by Arctic Diagnostics) to be relevant in developing age related macular degeneration (AMD)

This is the only way that scientists/physicians will have a reputable (wikipedia) source of up to date information about the genetics of this disease.

I seem to have run into a gang of well intentioned, but apparently not well versed in genetics, group of editors who are all quoting me various bits and pieces of wiki-instruction, but are not providing me any help

If there is some high wiki-god that also knows a thing or two about genetics, then perhaps I can get some instruction from this person about what the issues are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbelgraver (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have asked at the administrators' noticeboard. I have moved your request to Wikipedia:Ani#Macula_Risk so that administrators will see it. I'm off to bed now; I'll check in early tomorrow to see what's happened. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

John,

I ran into another unhelpful individual, and have re-requested that he explain what specific issue he has with the text instead of a blanket statement 'looks promotional to me'. My body count in now up to 4 or 5, of people telling me I have done something wrong, but not explaining what specific text was promotional.

Now the original content has been deleted too. A day of work wasted. Any idea how I can find this text back to edit it? I have no intent on becoming conversant in this horrendous wiki-editing language, but must start from scratch now..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbelgraver (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to continue this discussion here; I see that you have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Macula_Risk and to User talk:Sandstein, so I would prefer to let the administrators reply now. Thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_of_Reading/Archive_3&oldid=1096948374"