Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive S

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (assistance) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Help to bring Wikipedia in Kannada Language

I am not aware about how to introduce the wiki in indian languages. My motive is to see wiki in Kannada language. It is among the oldest languages in India. It is requested to kannadigas around the world who would be able to answer to my query that how can we introduce wiki in Kannada language spoken by nearly 60 million people.

It is as important as any other indian language to intorduce wiki.

Please let me know how we can achieve it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manju1008 (talk • contribs) 13:51, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Instructions available at Requests for new languages - follow the instructions there. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Kannada language Wikipedia! It can be viewed at http://kn.wikipedia.org. Not all browsers can support the needed fonts, but look at the Kannada language article, which has a screenshot of the main page of that Wikipedia. According to the list of all the language Wikipedias at [1], it has about 4,800 articles. EdJohnston 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are 11,681 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about Wikipedia, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 4,798 pages that are probably legitimate content pages. 938 files have been uploaded. There are 1,131 registered users, of which 3 (or 0.27%) have Sysops rights. -- Cat ^chi? 17:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble convincing a user that certain links are reliable sources

There is a dispute/discussion ongoing at Talk:Jackie Chan#Son about an illegitimate daughter conceived by Jackie Chan. In spite of multiple sources from Time magazine and a credible local newspaper Sing Tao Daily, the user DaliusButkus has insisted that they are not, claiming Time is sensationalist. I'd be grateful to have some outside opinions on this discussion. Thanks in advance.--Alasdair 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time recently I've seen Time challenged as being an RS. What's up with this?--SarekOfVulcan 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are these Time references? (They are not visible at Talk:Jackie Chan nor in the article itself). EdJohnston 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is on the Talk page, a couple of sections up, labeled as "Time Asia": http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/heroes/chan.html "...he all but acknowledged paternity..."--SarekOfVulcan 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Searching 'mainspace' for certain domains

Hello, there a way to search using the Wikipedia search tool to see all the times a certain domain is used in 'mainspace'. I remember seeing it in a certain discussion, but cant find it now. Here someone uses an outside tool to do it, but theres a way to do it on Wiki search. Link Can someone show me how? Thank you. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You can use Special:Linksearch to search all the external links in Wikipedia, though this is not limited to the main namespace. --Cherry blossom tree 07:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you know the name of the domain you can use domaintools.com, the search results includes list of links from WP, sorted by namespace I believe. -- Steve Hart 18:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I release it under GPL?

I made conversion tables for a Japanese conversion engine. The format is that:

(The sound of name) (Part)*(Frequency) (A Japanese name)
あいかわさとる       #T35*130           藍川さとる

Note: You need a Japanese font to show the Japanese names. Get umeplus-fonts-20070806.tar.bz2 from http://www.geocities.jp/ep3797/modified_fonts_01.html

We can convert "あいかわさとる" (= the sound of the name) to "藍川さとる" (= the Japanese name) by the table.

I've got the Japanese names of Manga artists from Wikipedia.ja. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E6%BC%AB%E7%94%BB%E5%AE%B6%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7 (It is like that: "Category:Manga artists" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Manga_artists )

Examples of the Japanese names.

藍川さとる
相川有（抄）
相田裕（抄）
...

Some of the names were not suitable for the tables, so I modified them.

藍川さとる
相川有
相田裕
...

I've added Sound, Part and Frequency to the names.

あいかわさとる #T35*130 藍川さとる
あいかわゆう #T35*130 相川有
あいだゆう #T35*130 相田裕
...

I want to release the tables under GPL, but a Japanese Debian user said "Wikipedia is under GFDL and you got the names from Wikipedia. You cannot release it under GPL".

I think the names are known names as Manga artists, so I don't think the names themselves are "article". But someone might think "a group of names is an article".

I modified some of the names and added new factors to them. Can I release it under GPL? --Heath33 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that I understand the situation, but I'll take a stab at this.

I believe that you want to place the table generated by a GPL-licensed program into Wikipedia articles, but exclusively under a GPL license. This is not possible. All text placed on Wikipedia through an edit window is automatically placed under the GFDL, per the note under every edit window, "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License." Where you got the names doesn't matter at all, unless of course you are also translating text from Wikipedia, which would further require a GFDL license. You are welcome to state that you are dual-licensing on your talk page through a simple note, such as "All contributions from this account are licensed under the GPL, as well as the GFDL." However, it is not possible to add content without also putting it under the GFDL. The one exception is that you may take a screenshot or output from the program, upload it as a file to Wikipedia and tag it with {{GPL}}. It may then be used as a normal image. - BanyanTree 06:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear explanations. :-) I made the tables for a GPLed software, so I wanted to make them GPL. Maybe we can't merge GFDL/GPL tables into a pure GPLed software.

> you want to place the table generated by a GPL-licensed program into Wikipedia articles

I'll take an example from English Wikipedia. ;-)

I copied some of the names of "Manga artists" from Category:Manga_artists.

> Yoshitoshi ABe, Chako Abeno, Tsutomu Adachi, Mitsuru Adachi...

I added Sound, Part and Frequency to them. It's a conversion table for a GPLed software.

> Yoshitoshi ABe, あべよしとし, Name, 100

> Chako Abeno, あべのちゃこ, Name, 100

> ...

Personally, I think "names" are not "article" and no one has a copyright of the names. Anyway I didn't use all of the names in the Category, and I added other names from other sites.

> per the note under every edit window

You are right. Maybe I'd better say "I used Wikipedia as a reference" to make the tables GPL. --Heath33 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like you're using wikipedia as a source of simple facts. If you wrote a phonebook program by copying from the phonebook, or a conversion program by copying constants from a textbook, the original copyright wouldn't carry over since you're just copying the facts. So you don't need to worry about the GFDL, just attributing for the sake of doing the right thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Night Gyr. Wikipedia is not perfect, so I need to check the names. My "conversion table" will not be a simple copy of Wikipedia. I'll use Wikipedia just as a "reference".

I'll close this thread. Thank you so much. --Heath33 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jin Renqing

i wonder if the article is already a copy vio? as the last paragraph is pretty close to CNN - some sentences are 1:1 ... please check and if necessary please do the needed steps as I do not know them...Sicherlich ^Post 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC) i dont know if this post is on the correct place here; anyways; i do not want to study Wikipedia:Village pump to find out what where is the most suitable place

Parts of it most definitely are. In fact, it seems to be a copy & paste: "Jin caused China's foreign currency reserves surge past $1.3 billion" contains a grammatical error that makes sense in light of the original: "Jin's tenure saw China's foreign currency reserves surge past $1.3 billion." I'll have a go at it if somebody doesn't clean it before I get there. --Moonriddengirl 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I spent about an hour editing a page now its gone!?

I bet this happens here all the time, i edited an article, it was saved for a while, now its gone, all gone!! What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthofaliarx (talk • contribs) 04:04, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

You can check out WP:WWMPD, but the only other page your account has edited is Catherine (band), which has never been deleted. Which page were you thinking of?--Max Talk (+) 04:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Should have waited for an admin to come along who can see deleted contribs. :P he wrote Rumor Has It: Astaroth Has Stolen Your Eyes, which was deleted: "Speedy deleted per (CSD a1), was a very short article providing little or no context." Looking at it, I agree, and question why that took an hour. I mean, hell, it doesn't even say WHO DID THE ALBUM. --Golbez 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, I can't believe I forgot that. Thanks, Golbez.--Max Talk (+) 07:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On Catherine (band) I noticed User:AntiSpamBot reverted a link to Tinypic, but also several edits that seemed meaningful. I reverted to the edit before the Tinypic link was added [2]. CoJaBo 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't figure the use of RfC template

I created a Request for Comment on the sci list, and it doesn't come out properly formatted. I've read and re-read the template usage, and it seems I used it properly. The request for comment itself is at the bottom of the Dianazene talk page. I would appreciate if someone can help fix the formatting. Raymond Hill 23:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The template in this section looks fine, so I guess you already fixed it. By the way, did you know that you do not need to type URLs for internal links? It can be annoying for some users who use certain types of JS scripting to modify the onclick behaviour. Adrian M. H. 11:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is actually at sci list, it doesn't come out properly formatted. I suspect it might have to do with embedding wikilinks in the section name, but I would like to know for sure, since I can't preview how it will appear on the list. As for internal links, I will avoid these from now on. Raymond Hill 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see it now. That's easily fixed. It won't reliably function as an anchor, but it will take editors to the talk page, they have already seen the section title on the RFC page, and they can easily scroll down. I just took out the wikilinks. Adrian M. H. 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maine Coon

Would someone please intervene in the Maine Coon article, I have removed the External Links that do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:External links i) not encyclopedic ii) commercial iii) lack information to enhance the article iv) are on the Spam_Blacklist. An editor named Tebokkel believes they meet the guidelines, can someone intervene. I have discussed it on the articles talk page and the users discussion page. thank you. Chessy999 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If only two parties are involved, a 3O would help. Adrian M. H. 01:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with Wikipedia:Sound/list

This is the list of songs I use to keep track of what is available and integrated into Wikipedia articles. I just spent almost 4 hours updating it, and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. I'm about to go to bed now, but I'd appreciate help from others filling in the blank spots in the table. Raul654 07:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I finished uploading a whole lot of new ones, so any help would be welcome. Raul654 04:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Displaying all subcategories on one page

I just brought this issue up over at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, and thought it would be worth posting here as well:

I'm under the impression that there is a way to force a large category with multiple pages to display all of its subcats on the first page, instead of spreading them out over succeeding pages. Assuming that I'm correct about this, I'd appreciate it if somebody would be kind enough to explain how to accomplish this. Thanks! Cgingold 14:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way that I know how to accomplish this is by using the pipe trick to sort them all to the start of the list. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I see how that would do it -- but of course it would mean going through all of the sub-cats just to make that tiny alteration on each and every one of them. Ughh. Plus, it means losing the alphabetical dividers -- though they'd still be in the right order.

Hmmm. I was hoping there was a simple and direct way to accomplish the objective, through a tweak of the parent category. Perhaps something along the lines of adding __FORCETOC__ to make the TOC appear when there only 2 or 3 sections.

There really needs to be a simple way to do this, because I strongly suspect that many (if not most) people don't realize that there may be additional sub-cats spread out over successive pages. (I know I didn't, for a long time at least.) Any tech sorts want to make this happen?? :) Cgingold 23:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this count as adequate permission?

See Image_talk:Uk_bond.jpg Captain Zyrain 21:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The GFDL permits commercial re-use by anyone, which isn't what they consented to. They either need to consent specifically to licensing it under the terms of the GFDL or another acceptable license or we have to remove the image.--Chaser - T 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Are factual lists copyright-ineligible?

Greetings, I would like to place a list, specifically a historical population census into an article. I have a copyrighted book, the appendix of which contain a historical census of the population of an area throughout recorded history. All of it's figures came from public domain works several centuries old, and is labeled accordingly beside the population figures in a separate "Source" column. After reading Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works, I thought that perhaps this would be classified as a published derivative work from Public Domain sources. I'm not sure whether this would constitute public domain knowledge. I realise that organising all of those historical population figures from so many public domain books must have took time and great effort on the part of the scholar that compiled the list. However, I also think that if someone else, even I myself, were to have tried to compile a complete list of the population records, dug up old census records, I would have arrived at the same list with the exact same population figures, but then, that would be "Original Research" on my part, wouldn't it? My question is, would I be able to copy this list onto Wikipedia to illustrate the population growth of a particular area throughout recorded history? I would, of course, cite the book from which I am copying the information. Does this compilation of public domain population figures meet the threshold of originality, or is it copyright-ineligible? (Also, this list is exhaustive, which means that it has all of the years for which there exists a population figure, and not merely selective). Thanks in advance! --Taktser 14:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am no lawyer but I think that the case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service where the information form a phone directory was copied, gives a good answer to your question. It doesn't matter that it took a lot of effort to compile the facts, copyright generally requires some creative work (excpetion exists like photos). Mere compilations of facts are ineligible for copyright. Outside the USA it could be protected though but that is hardly relevant for the English Wikipeida. Jeltz talk 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a related discussion going on at Talk:2001-02 United States network television schedule. -- Petri Krohn 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood and Jenin, Jenin

requesting someone take a look at Pallywood and the recent dispute of the inclusion/exclusion of the "see also" link to the propaganda film Jenin, Jenin. this film is a very known topic in israel as an example of palestinains/arabs heavily distorting and falsifying stories to portray israel in a bad light... and i do believe that the article itself (about the film) is making this point clear. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

I know there's a way to identify the contributor of unsigned comments, but I don't know how to do it. I'm interested in knowing who made the unsigned commeht HERE. DCLawyer 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the one line at the end of that section, it looks to have been an IP. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If they used a section heading or summary, it will be clear from the history; otherwise, you may need to check the diffs. Adrian M. H. 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you need more detail ... Look at the History for the Talk page. Look for an edit to that particular section. In your case, the editor didn't indicate in the summary that he was editing that particular section, but it doesn't take long to find the particular edit in the history. When you have identified the contributor, you can insert the "unsigned" template to help future readers. Sbowers3 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Information ecology

I've got a couple of issues with this page I stumbled across ... mainly that it seems to be an advert for a couple of books laced with weasle words. I'm new to this, so what tags / action are appropriate?! Many thanks for your help. LookingYourBest 09:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a bid to get a new catch-phrase into the lexicon. At present it is not a terrible article, since it has references, though they should be properly formatted into a reference section using something like WP:CITET. Do you want to try your hand at rewriting the article? I can't think of any tags that apply directly, but everyone is welcome to improve articles. You could try nominating it for deletion on grounds of WP:NEO but I imagine it would be kept, so I won't nominate it myself. EdJohnston 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'll have a fair crack at editing it, would this be a good place to ask for a review afterwards? LookingYourBest 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for feedback is a good place to get feedback on an article you've created or majorly improved. --Moonriddengirl 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what is up...

with this article The Monster Study. It needs major attention from someone. Remember 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing I noticed was that the {{wikification}} template was in the article itself, not the Talk page, so I moved it. The edit history shows lots of recent activity on the page. If you have further concerns, you can certainly raise them at Talk:The Monster Study and you will most likely get a response there. EdJohnston 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Picture

There is a picture, Image:dc5.jpg which is not used in any other Wikipedia entry, but somebody (or several somebodies) keep trying to insert it in the article Renaissance fair, multiple times since last May. It is NOT appropriate! Can anything be done? Artemis-Arethusa 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

why is it not appropriate? is it not a foto from a fair? --emerson7 | Talk 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, maybe (at least, that is how it is identified). However, it no more belongs in this article than a picture of someone in a Klingon costume, or a cowboy outfit -- No, not even if they are at a Renaissance fair at the time! Renaissance fair is already picture-heavy, and every picture has to count. In fact, we do need more pictures -- of typical artisans/craftsmen -- NOT snapshots of every weird costume that shows up through the gates. Artemis-Arethusa 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the contribs page of the person who first added that photo, Beachnut4, it's all corsets and fetish stuff. The anonymous later posters of that image have only one or two postings, usually related to corsets. I think it's the same user. Meanwhile, plenty of different users have objected to it and removed it, right from the beginning. It does not fit the article. It is an inappropriate image. It is not used anywhere else. Can't it go away? Artemis-Arethusa 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on that article with Artemis, so I'd like to also agree with the removal of that picture from the article (at least). Its use on a page about Renaissance fairs is questionable, as the image is focused on the woman and her *ahem* physical traits rather than the topic. Whether or not the image should still be on Wikipedia may be debated. It should also be pointed out that the image Dc5.jpg is identical to Dc5 close.jpg, with the exception that the latter is more zoomed in. I don't think both images are needed... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision3 Corporation

I need some input. Are all of the people listed at Revision3 Corporation notable per WP:BIO, or should I start creating afd's? Corvus cornix 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And see also Systm. Look at all of those links. This looks like a massive advertising campaign for a lot of non-notable podcasts. There are no neutral references. It's conceivable that everything I've listed here is notable, but with no references, they don't really prove it. Corvus cornix 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding References

I attempted to add references to the Hart InterCivic entry (I'm trying to get it out of "stub" status by adding more info), but I could not get the references to show in the reference list, even though I used other entries as models and attempted to use the same coding I saw in those. I used {{reflist}} in the references section and </ref> after entry with the URL in brackets.

This is what I attempted to add: The Field Poll in its most recent survey measured the overall confidence that likely voters in California have that their votes are being accurately counted in this state's elections. In addition, it asked voters which of three possible voting methods provided them with the greatest assurance that their votes would be accurately counted. [3]</ref>

and I replaced "references" in the References section with {{reflist}}.

So, what did I miss? Lichtenheld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plichtenheld (talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 September 2007

Not quite sure what is wrong here. The references section seems to look fine. Refactored your post a bit so that the templates show up as words. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you have the <ref> before the url? You are missing it in your post above. Sbowers3 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How add photographer credit to a photo already posted on John Philip Falter web page?

Currently the photo of John Philip Falter, Saturday Evening Post cover artist, appears with a photographer unknown listing. My husband IS the photographer and we could not figure out how to add his name to the photo credit. How can he do this? Or who do we contact to get this changed.

Thanks, Dana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.1.57 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to use the Open Ticket Request System system to have this attributed. This involves emailing the Wikimedia Foundation. If your husband is the copyright holder and wishes to release the photo under an appropriate license, that can be done too. Further information may be on the Wikipedia:Contact us page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What RFC category does beer fit into?

There is a dispute on an article about beer. I could not find a category in rfc section that applies to beer. Could someone make a recommendation please? Mikebe 16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an interesting problem. :) I'd probably put it under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex with an {{RFCsoc}} tag. The only other near match seems to be {{RFCecon}}, since it is a product. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Mikebe 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Static HTML dumps page always down

http://static.wikipedia.org/ (see also [4])
Hello, the Static HTML dumps download page is never working. Is there a non-wikipedian mirror where we can download the complete 2007 HTML version of en.wiki (and fr:wiki as well)? Or maybe a torrent? Except the 2003 dump by Tero it seems there is no HTML dump anywhere.
NB:This is for a personnal offline use, and XML is too complicated for me. Thx for your help. 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Government Laboratory High School and sources

Hi all, I was just wondering how long citation tags are on an article before you can remove the unsourced claims? There have been a couple on the above article since July now! LookingYourBest 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the 'official' guidelines are, but I'd guess it depends on how active the article is, and how questionable the statement is. If the statement isn't in doubt, then there's really no point in removing it -- someone will eventually find a cite for it. If the statement is being challenged, or is believed to be outright false, then I'd allow a shorter time -- perhaps moving it to the Talk page so it doesn't get lost in history-land. As an aside, my personal pet peeve is when people go into an article, sprinkle 'fact' tags liberally on half the sentences, and then disappear. Usually it takes 10 minutes of googling to find cites for everything they marked, but hey it's easier to cry "citation needed" than actually try to improve the articles by finding cites, right?? --Rehcsif 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the same feeling about virtually every tag and nag-box that litter wikipedia these days; they're a crutch more than a help, IMHO. But that's a whole 'nother argument ... - DavidWBrooks 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As a firm believer in WP:V, and thus someone who does go into articles and add fly by fact tags (although I don't like "sprikling" them all over the place or over tagging), let me explain some of my rational for NOT just popping over to Google and finding citations myself. While I can tell when a statement needs a citation, there are a lot of subjects that I know nothing about. I don't know the source material or what material is reliable and respected. I hesitate to add sources and statements to articles on subject I know nothing about, since I could well be adding something that seems reliable to me, but is absolute rubbish to someone who actually knows something about the topic. I therefore prefer to simply flag the statement or article so that someone who does know something about the topic can pick the best source/s available.

Of course flagging would be a lot less common (or needed) if more people wrote articles based on the source material rather than did their sourcing based on what was in the article. In otherwords... do your research before you start to write an article, and have the sources ready to hand as you write it. Then someone like me won't come along and have to clutter up the article with tons of citation requests. Blueboar 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with Wikipedia:Sound/list

This is the list of songs I use to keep track of what is available and integrated into Wikipedia articles. I just spent almost 4 hours updating it, and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. I'm about to go to bed now, but I'd appreciate help from others filling in the blank spots in the table. Raul654 07:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I finished uploading a whole lot of new ones, so any help would be welcome. Raul654 04:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

referencing the Wikipedia of an article topic's native language

I've been having a hard time making a case that the Mysterious Dungeon video games are a series -- despite the fact that they have been developed by a number of different companies -- over in Talk:Mysterious_Dungeon. I'm particularly having a hard time because the games were made in Japan, very few of them have been released in the US, and there is very little information about them in English. Even in Japanese, the only information I've been able to find that ties them all together (besides the fact that they all contain the phrase "Fushigi no Dungeon" in their Japanese titles and all feature the same core gameplay) is on the Japanese Wikipedia, which says that:

1. all of the games in the series made by companies other than Chunsoft (the company that started the series) have been made with the explicit permission of Chunsoft.[5]
2. the "Chocobo Fushigi No Dungeon" games, although developed by Square, were supervised by the president of Chunsoft.[6]

Of course, it's bad form to cite Wikipedia itself, and the Japanese articles don't cite any references of their own, so I can't just cite the same sources that they do (presumably their sources are the Japanese end-game credits of the games in question, but this isn't explicitly stated). Does citing the Japanese Wikipedia at least have more "weight" than citing the English Wikipedia because the article's topic is Japanese, or is there a more straightforward solution to this problem that I'm overlooking? (I should also note that Moby Games calls them a "group" of games, but Moby Games isn't a primary source either.) Luvcraft 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, any wiki counts as an unreliable source, no matter what the language, because the nature of wikis means that anyone can change them at any time without the edits being reviewed before going live. Since the Japanese Wikipedia does not cite any sources for that statement, you shouldn't rely on it. I would suggest that you look elsewhere for sources. Tra (Talk) 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

problem with editor

I had proposed an article merge. Three people voted for and one against. An editor who constantly makes problems then voted against, but instead of giving reasons, he made a personal attack against me. The majority was still in favour of the merge, so I made it. Today he has undid the merge saying there was no consensus. This is, of course, not true. What can be done about this? Mikebe 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the wikiquette of suspicion

How does one gently bring up the notion that a brand-new editor may be a sockpuppet or a "bad hand" account, without violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA? I have become aware of a newbie who has jumped into a very contentious subject and has been editing there very suspiciously like a serious Wikipedia pro from their very first post. However, I don't wish to falsely accuse anyone, not even on an admin's talk page, just in case I'm wrong. (But I don't think I am.) wikipediatrix 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you could just try asking nicely on the user's talk page. It's always possible that the editor may have picked up their wiki experience elsewhere. — RJH (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any way to "nicely" ask the user if he's a sockpuppet. The user in question is being increasingly tendentious and insulting, so I think we're past that point now anyway. wikipediatrix 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and make a request (if done politely it is not considered a personal attack). Be sure to include links to edits that demonstrate the behaviour that makes you suspect the user is a Sock. Blueboar 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pornography

Please delete the picture posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade. It is pornography and offensive.

Sincerely, Cynthia Waddell <e-mail removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.230.250 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You must be imagining it. There are no offensive images (apart from a few that are not very well composed) and no edits of images in the recent history. Adrian M. H. 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was probably a vandalized template, though I haven't searched through everything to figure out which one it might have been. Corvus cornix 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

External link

hi, i tried to add a link for this page http://www.pulp.net/52/top10.html to the laura hird page. it didnt work so I tried linking here instead http://www.pulp.net/top10/index.html though the first link would have been better. but it still did not work I thiought I was doing this in the right place please let me know what I have done wrong, thanks

palmelaine 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmelaine1 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The slash at the end of the URL seems to have been the culprit. I removed it and it seems to be working ok. Corvus cornix 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What is wikibooks?

I am writing a "legal report" to help to make wikipedia articles. Can I write that report to wikibooks?

I read following:[7]

• primary research in any field — Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, et cetera. In short, Wikibooks is not for original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web, such as at http://academia.wikicities.com Academia Wikicity.

What is that means? I am english beginner.

wikibooks allow some college report type articles?

Where can I upload my report? -- WonYong (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would ask Wikibooks' version of the villiage pump. They are a seperate website from this one. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested help to make tools for handling the cleanup category of how-to articles

There is a category of articles, holding from about 90-140 articles at any one time, which contain how-to material that need to be edited.

There has been a year-long effort to form helpful editing guidelines to improving such articles, which dont adhere to the stated policies. It has been unsuccessful in providing the groundwork for such usable instructions.

There are occasionally brilliant cases when a article or a section is wikified and improved to a good level, and at the same time, the {{howto}} tag is removed from the article. In that case, the brilliant editing will go mostly unnoticed, altho the bad material does get wikified.

There's a lesson to be made from this. We need a log to be made of articles that are added and removed from the said category. Then such edits may be put under inspection and learned from. I request any able editor to start a bot that would keep such log, for the purpose of helping to find good guidelines for editing. Santtus 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maine Coon

Would someone please intervene in the Maine Coon article, I have removed the External Links that do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:External links i) not encyclopedic ii) commercial iii) lack information to enhance the article iv) are on the Spam_Blacklist. An editor named Tebokkel believes they meet the guidelines, can someone intervene. I have discussed it on the articles talk page and the users discussion page. thank you. Chessy999 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If only two parties are involved, a 3O would help. Adrian M. H. 01:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fix for someone else

Can one of you fix this please, it looks like an improperly set-up request for mediation by someone else. I'm off to bed, so I can't fix it myself (and I don't know how to do it anyway). Thanks, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's so much information missing that I would be unable to complete it for the user. I'll address the user at his or her talk page about procedures in dispute resolution and see if I can be of assistance that way. --Moonriddengirl 17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on words i can't find on a search engine

I have been looking for "special bank account" both with quotation marks and without. It seems that on one check i received under the name it says:

John Doe
Special Bank Account
123 Main Street
Anytown, NY 99999

Does special Bank Account mean anything?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judge bill (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you want the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Hut 8.5 09:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

Is there a quick way to find out all the other pages that a page is linked to? Thanks! LookingYourBest 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be handy to have a link summary for each page. That would make it easier to check for overlinking and redundancy. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic value of a troubleshooting guide

Just so this doesn't turn in to something larger than it is, could I get some outside input on the Component video article as to whether or not a troubleshooting guide belongs in a wikipedia article [8], preferably on the article talk page. Thanks.--Crossmr 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You were correct to remove it, I believe. If a 3O would help, I'd be happy to provide one, although it would be premature at this time. Adrian M. H. 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actions on article Murder of James Bulger

I've just made some updates to Murder of James Bulger, which I have detailed on the talk page. As I haven't really come across this type of issue before, I was wondering if others could have a look and advise if anything else needs to be done. If I've posted this in the wrong place, or in the wrong fashion, please accept my apologies; any assistance in directing me to the correct place in that circumstance would be appreciated. — digitaleon • talk @ 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you want to go to Wikipedia:Third opinion, but I've looked at the edits and they seem to remove heavy POV pushing and advertisement for a petition (and even an e-mail address), removing those things might be a good thing. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with naming dispute?

I have come across enormous trouble while participating in a discussion to rename an article to an accepted English transliteration. Unfortunately, while the RfC has generated attention, it hasn't been enough to counteract the stubbornness and the forum shopping of the opponents. The article should be renamed according to WP:UE, WP:NC, and WP:V, but the opponents will not back down on retaining the foreign spelling.

Even the article's subject (a person) has adopted the transliteration on his official website. The English transliteration appears on every WP:RS familiar to English speakers, including TV stations, the Associated Press, online news and sports sites, and the ATP.

Is there anything more that can be done? I am relatively new to WP, but it is discouraging to think that a few individuals could stall the encyclopedia's improvement in spite of clear policy. -- Yano 05:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

third opinion, fourth opinion, fifth opinion..

This has gone on too long on a couple articles and I would encourage as many people as possible to attend both these talk pages and give some input in the hopes of actually ending this dispute. In a nutshell, one editor is attempting to use a number of sources in a couple of articles which don't meet WP:V and WP:RS. Even though a handful of editors have come to clarify that these sources are not usable edit warring has ensued. Paypal has been protected as a result, and a community sanctions discussion resulted in the consensus that more input should solve this without too much further. Over at Talk:IntelliTXT the issue is the individual wishes to use a blog as a source even though its been pointed out he doesn't meet the criteria and more reliable sources have been provided as a compromise. At Talk:PayPal there are two issues. The appropriateness of sites like paypalsux.com as external links (for which an rfc was filed and the only two respondents agreed that they weren't, but the debate continues) and whether individual user posts in a forum can be used to draw conclusions about the notability of a criticism and what that criticism is see this for the nature of the criticism and the citation [9]. I really can't stress enough how much additional input is required here if you have friends, neighbours, loved ones, perhaps pets who can type, please ask them to give their opinion.--Crossmr 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. Admittedly, I only looked at the PayPal page, so I can only give my opinion on that. I would say that paypalsux.com would be acceptable as an external link, if only to give a voice to the good and bad sides to using PayPal. I had an issue similar to that on another page I work on, and an admin was called in to give an opinion that is basically identical to what I'm saying. Despite Wikipedia championing the intelligence of the masses, I don't believe that forum posts are admissible as references or as information. If you guys can find some credible sources, such as newspapers or magazine articles, then those should be there.

From what I can see, it's a battle between you and Yoder. You've both been attacking each other there, and the argument has gone on far, far too long. I would possibly recommend adding a Wikiquette alert, but you're both going to get yelled at for letting this go as long as you have. IMO, this needs to be stepped up further, probably up to Arbitration. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Got some spare time, so I've been looking around. I didn't realize that you were conflicting with Njoyder on both pages. Again, I'll suggest a Wikiquette alert, or failing that, the Mediation Cabal or mediation. Above all, I would say that you should distance yourself entirely from both pages until you start using more formal methods of dispute resolution. You don't need to add fuel to the fire. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Picture

There is a picture, Image:dc5.jpg which is not used in any other Wikipedia entry, but somebody (or several somebodies) keep trying to insert it in the article Renaissance fair, multiple times since last May. It is NOT appropriate! Can anything be done? Artemis-Arethusa 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

why is it not appropriate? is it not a foto from a fair? --emerson7 | Talk 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, maybe (at least, that is how it is identified). However, it no more belongs in this article than a picture of someone in a Klingon costume, or a cowboy outfit -- No, not even if they are at a Renaissance fair at the time! Renaissance fair is already picture-heavy, and every picture has to count. In fact, we do need more pictures -- of typical artisans/craftsmen -- NOT snapshots of every weird costume that shows up through the gates. Artemis-Arethusa 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the contribs page of the person who first added that photo, Beachnut4, it's all corsets and fetish stuff. The anonymous later posters of that image have only one or two postings, usually related to corsets. I think it's the same user. Meanwhile, plenty of different users have objected to it and removed it, right from the beginning. It does not fit the article. It is an inappropriate image. It is not used anywhere else. Can't it go away? Artemis-Arethusa 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on that article with Artemis, so I'd like to also agree with the removal of that picture from the article (at least). Its use on a page about Renaissance fairs is questionable, as the image is focused on the woman and her *ahem* physical traits rather than the topic. Whether or not the image should still be on Wikipedia may be debated. It should also be pointed out that the image Dc5.jpg is identical to Dc5 close.jpg, with the exception that the latter is more zoomed in. I don't think both images are needed... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Who has a U.S. library card?

Could someone who has a U.S. library card get this article from accessmylibrary, please? It's

• Benedikt S. Benedikz: "The Wise Man with the Child's Heart: Bjorn Gunnlaugsson, 1788-1876", Scandinavian Studies vol. 75 part 4, 2003; pp. 567–590. ISSN 0036-5637. Published by the "Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Studies" in the U.S.

Unfortunately, my local library cannot get me that journal, and I'm not in the U.S. The article would be very helpful to expand our encyclopedia entry Björn Gunnlaugsson. Thank you! Lupo 19:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks, David! Lupo 07:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes and headings in userprofile

My userboxes keep cutting off my headings and moving them to the right side of the page. Can somebody fix this? Please look at my page.

Dictator57 04:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to add more userboxes. You are well below the recommended allotment of 1,000. ;-) Actually I just bracket them inside {{Userboxtop}}/{{Userboxbottom}} templates. — RJH (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Or use divs for infinitely more flexibility. Adrian M. H. 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just subst the Userboxtop/bottom templates and you'll get the divs. That's what I use. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better 'recently deceased' template?

the 'recent death' one really doesn't work on a lot of pages where someone has just died naturally and expectedly after long illness, great age, etc. (I think of this right now because of Madeleine L'Engle). The "Some information, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known." line is fatuous in many cases. I know a number of editors believe it should only be added to pages where there's reason to believe there might be some controversy about the death, though I personally think the notice at the top of the page is fine, it draws attention to a current event, but the phrasing is unneeded in many cases. Has anyone done anything else? --Thespian 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You could create an alternative, or maybe add a switch to make that line optional, but that sort of change needs to be discussed at the template's talk page first. Adrian M. H. 01:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would require discussion if you designed the switch so that the line remained by default. Just add it to the documentation and give a good edit summary and I don't think anyone would complain. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler warning

What is the current stand on plot spoiler warning? Where do we need them (if at all)? Wikilink at your pleasure. Thank you. --Do not click me! 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Spoiler help to answer your questions? Corvus cornix 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Code

Hey guys. Can I get help with code here?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Um.. I assume you're trying to get help on the same thing as you did here. As to why it's leaking out, my guess is because the featured article part has its own set width, and because you're breaking the Wiki style by adding too much into one row. The page is going to overflow, but the background won't continue with it. You're not going to get the Wiki background to stretch... I don't think you can solve this one and still have all four elements in that row. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Government Laboratory High School and sources

Hi all, I was just wondering how long citation tags are on an article before you can remove the unsourced claims? There have been a couple on the above article since July now! LookingYourBest 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the 'official' guidelines are, but I'd guess it depends on how active the article is, and how questionable the statement is. If the statement isn't in doubt, then there's really no point in removing it -- someone will eventually find a cite for it. If the statement is being challenged, or is believed to be outright false, then I'd allow a shorter time -- perhaps moving it to the Talk page so it doesn't get lost in history-land. As an aside, my personal pet peeve is when people go into an article, sprinkle 'fact' tags liberally on half the sentences, and then disappear. Usually it takes 10 minutes of googling to find cites for everything they marked, but hey it's easier to cry "citation needed" than actually try to improve the articles by finding cites, right?? --Rehcsif 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the same feeling about virtually every tag and nag-box that litter wikipedia these days; they're a crutch more than a help, IMHO. But that's a whole 'nother argument ... - DavidWBrooks 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As a firm believer in WP:V, and thus someone who does go into articles and add fly by fact tags (although I don't like "sprikling" them all over the place or over tagging), let me explain some of my rational for NOT just popping over to Google and finding citations myself. While I can tell when a statement needs a citation, there are a lot of subjects that I know nothing about. I don't know the source material or what material is reliable and respected. I hesitate to add sources and statements to articles on subject I know nothing about, since I could well be adding something that seems reliable to me, but is absolute rubbish to someone who actually knows something about the topic. I therefore prefer to simply flag the statement or article so that someone who does know something about the topic can pick the best source/s available.

Of course flagging would be a lot less common (or needed) if more people wrote articles based on the source material rather than did their sourcing based on what was in the article. In otherwords... do your research before you start to write an article, and have the sources ready to hand as you write it. Then someone like me won't come along and have to clutter up the article with tons of citation requests. Blueboar 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

articles for deletion log

Where has the AfD log gone? There's no longer any place to enter articles nominated for deletion to the list. The instructions on the main AfD page used to have a direct link to it and now it's gone. wikipediatrix 16:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a link to it in the AfD box that appears with {{afd1}}. As for the instructions, I'm looking at the transcluded templates for vandalism. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The direct "click here" was removed June 19 [10] from {{AfD in 3 steps}}. I suggest using the link in either the AfD box or on the page when you click "Preloaded debate". Alternatively, it's near the top of the WP:AFD page under "Current discussions". -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A user kept removing a referenced line in Jackie Chan

Despite clear discussion that indicates that the sources about Jackie Chan's illegitimate daughter is reliable at Talk:Jackie Chan#Son (It is from Time Magazine), User:DaliusButkus continuously refused to acknowledge it (insisting that Time is not reliable) and kept deleting the line. I'd like some assistance in this dispute, since I am starting to think he is violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAME by setting his own standards for what is reliable.--Alasdair 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he just returned from a 12-13-day break and that is his only edit of the day as of now. I'd wait for his next response on the talk page before we can use, er, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's removed it again, and left this message [11] in my talk page. It's getting frustrating, really. I mean, he's the only one with that viewpoint, despite external intervention last time.--Alasdair 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And now, I've opened an RFC on the article at Talk:Jackie Chan#Jackie Chan's personal life.--Alasdair 01:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

External link

hi, i tried to add a link for this page http://www.pulp.net/52/top10.html to the laura hird page. it didnt work so I tried linking here instead http://www.pulp.net/top10/index.html though the first link would have been better. but it still did not work I thiought I was doing this in the right place please let me know what I have done wrong, thanks

palmelaine 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmelaine1 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The slash at the end of the URL seems to have been the culprit. I removed it and it seems to be working ok. Corvus cornix 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a message

I just want to set the record straight...

I went to a page (having accidentally misspelled the item I was searching for) and was told that I have a message. First, I didn't know Wiki left messages for unregistered users like me, second, the message was in reference to an edit/modification which I didn't make. I have never edited any pages on Wiki- ever. I find Wiki useful enough just as it is without attempting to re-word the fine articles I see every day.

FYI, here is the text of the message that was "sent" to me:

August 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Abigail Spencer. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Acalamari 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it doubly curious that I only now received this message on 9/15/07 but the message was composed and/or sent on 8/11/07.

Anyway, whoever edited the Abigail Spencer article wasn't me. Just wanted to tell anyone who might read this that fact. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.76.248.22 (talk • contribs)

You received the message because you are not logged in, and are using a dynamic IP. You can avoid these stray messages by registering for an account. As a side note, warnings over a few weeks old are generally considered stale as long as there is no pattern of abuse. --Sigma 7 03:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Obscene language on Talk:Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) talk page

Greetings, I need a bit of advice and outside assistance as another editor is accusing me of being the subject of the article or working in tandem with the subject (I'm not). I did however remove an obscenity which he reverted here[12] and I'd like some guidance on how to handle it even if it's that I do nothing. Any help appreciated. Benjiboi 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, don't revert other people's comments on the talk page. As to curses, well, Wiki is uncensored. The profanity is a personal attack on you, and I added to the user's talk page a comment against personal attacks. Wiki's policy on removing text on personal attacks is one of frequent debate, but the page says: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited."[13]

As to his argument: it's completely without merit, so I'd probably just let it slide for now. That article is clearly very active, and there's already a lot of arguing over there. If you do get repeatedly accused/attacked, consider taking it higher up the chain. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I definitely didn't want to take any further action without advice so I appreciate your time. Benjiboi 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good evening

Hello, i'm a french wikipedian. I search someone who lives in Philadelphia. It's for taking photographies ... If he is free, can he take contact with me on fr:user:stef48 ? Perhaps exist a category for find all user living in Philadelphia, but i dont' know ! Thanks, Stef4854 18:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is Category:Wikipedians in Philadelphia, but spamming those users' talk pages would probably be considered improper. A better option would be to post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philadelphia, explaining exactly what you want a picture of and why. It's possible there is already a relevant photo that they can direct you to. Cheers, BanyanTree 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Photo_Matching_Service#Philadelphia. The one user who listed himself there has not edited for a weeks though. ssepp^(talk) 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

About how to pronounce Sessue Hayakawa

Hi, I would like to ask you a question about Sessue Hayakawa, a Japanese actor. Dictionary.com says the pronunciation is sesh-oo, but in "House of Bamboo" trailer (1955), the narrator pronounce it /séswe/. So which is the common pronunciation for native speakers in English? --Tomoki Tsuji 14:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an issue of poor Romanization. His name is Sesshū (雪洲, せっしゅう), right? I'm not sure how 'Sessue' came into use, but my guess is that because of when he lived, they were using an older system to Romanize his name, and it stuck with him since then. Anyway.. when I first saw his name, I thought it might be "sess-you-ey," but I guess /séswe/ could have been acceptable. Having looked up the kana for his name, though, I'll be pronouncing it correctly from now on. (PS, sorry if I didn't answer your question as best I could.) — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

image in a portal box

Sdsds has tried to place an image in the Spaceflight portal box, example [14] for a portal to [15] but the image doesn't seem to come out. I tried to edit the image with no result. Is there a proper way to format or is the image not needed? --Statsone 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to use the "B" word in public, so instead I'll say this looks like an "undocumented feature" of the wikipedia software. Or is there documentation somewhere that explains why images appear under some circumstances but not under others? Is there any other help anyone can provide on workarounds for this "disappearing images" feature? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 21:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a Commons image, and there are problems with Commons images right now. Corvus cornix 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sdsds changed the image to a new one and now works. Thanks for help. --Statsone 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that the "problems with Commons images" seem to have stopped, can anyone explain (or indicate where it is explained) why the problems started and why they have stopped? (sdsds - talk) 01:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism to watchlist

I believe there has been vandalism to my watchlist, some items added and some items deleted. Is there a history mechanism to tell exactly when and by whom this has been done? Richiar 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. —O (说 • 喝) 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No one else can even view it, unless you have been lax with your login. Do you make a backup periodically? Adrian M. H. 01:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought no one else could view it either. But it has been vandalized three times at least. Someone keeps placing "Muppets" on my watchlist, and also someone placed "reality = commodity" on my watchlist. The second occured I'm sure, because I confronted a "commodity vandal". However it was done, the watchlist was entered and tampered with.

Thanks for the suggestion to back up the watchlist. I will do so. In the meantime, some technician might want to check how vandals might gain entry to another users watchlist.

Lax with my login? No one else in my circle of friends uses or has any interest in Wikipedia. Perhaps the passcode was accessed online?Richiar 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If a page on your watchlist is moved, you end up watching the page that it was moved to (even if it's moved back). If you look at the history of the pages involved it should be clear that this has happened. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 24

September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I didn't quite understand that. A page was removed and a couple inserted. Richiar 02:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) I just noticed another editor complaining of the same thing or a similar thing under "Mysterious Edits" above. Richiar 02:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not the same problem at all; that relates directly to content removal and is unlikely to bear any relation at all to this issue. You say that one was removed: no red link in the checklist? Two were added: do you use any scripts? eg. Twinkle can watchlist pages after certain types of edit. (Just grabbing at straws as they float by.) As Rick Block has touched on, I think that moves of currently watched pages (particularly of the vandalistic variety) may cause new titles to appear. Adrian M. H. 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what happened:

1. There was a red link to "reality = commodity" which linked to a now deleted article. I removed this from my watchlist.

2. There was another red link to a bizarre word: "hagger???????" which I removed to from my watchlist. (I didn't try to track it).

3. Then there was an article that I watch that was missing from my watchlist, that someone removed.

4. Then there was a blue "Muppets" link that someone has placed on my watchlist twice after I have removed it.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by the question "do I use scripts?". Thanks. Richiar 03:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Both the "reality = commodity" and the "HAGGER????"" articles were products of recent page-move vandalism. Not sure about the other two problems but the cause may be the same thing. Also, when articles are protected, this can cause them not to appear on your watchlist until they are edited again. CIreland 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Richiar 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

In Mathematics many beatiful images are not showing up --87.1.53.219 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've purged the image caches. Does it look better now? Tra (Talk) 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Just another thing: in order to purge all you have to do is add "?action=purge". Right? --87.1.53.219 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. --CrazyLegsKC 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

bold, italic, no wiki, etc buttons

is anyone else haveing problems with the formatting buttons when trying to edit... for example the B (change to Bold) button does not seem to be working for me... I have to type the ''' characters by hand. Blueboar 15:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned at VPT. Adrian M. H. 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Posting of phone number

I recently reverted vandalism that posted the supposed phone number of a person. [16] How exactly do I go about getting that edit removed from the page's history? Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oversight - IP and the number both originate in Texas. Dureo 08:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit is toast. Thanks! Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Permission to edit an archived AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yellowikis_(old) has a strikeout tag on the page that doesn't have an ending tag, and by what I can see, this was NOT intentional. For some reason, none of the commentors after the tag edit noticed (it may have only come up when the page was moved?). I want to add or have someone add an ending tag at the end of the original user's comment, as it seems that was the intention, rather than to strike out the rest of the page, but there's that big red "DON'T EDIT" thing on the bottom (which... is also struck out...). Also, this was obviously not what the contributors saw during the discussion, so it is not an accurate archive. And I can't ask for a Wikipedia: Request for Comment because if I were to edit the page like it requires, I might as well add the tag myself. --Raijinili 16:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone's fixed this. This is probably one of those times when you can ignore all rules. Tra (Talk) 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a blanket rule against editing a closed AfD. Common sense should prevail in case of a serious formatting problem like this one. It is puzzling how the unclosed strikeout could have originated. It might even be a software issue. EdJohnston 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots from YouTube,etc. videos

I'd be willing to bet this has been answered somewhere but I don't know where to look. I'm editing an article about an internet celebrity and am looking to get an image for use. Is their policy about using a screenshot? Also what is the request a photo template? I've seen it on a few articles but haven't a clue where to find it. Thank you! Benjiboi

Asking also at ref desk. Benjiboi 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the RD volunteers are doing it right, they'll send you here or to the Help Desk. WP:RP is the page that you want, which also lists the templates, such as {{reqphoto}}. Screenshots are covered by the non-free content policy. Adrian M. H. 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Benjiboi 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious edits

I have been noticing edits on my watchlist from a variety of different editors that, while adding or removing various text, also outright delete all dates and other strings of numbers from citation templates.

Aside from being an annoyance, does anyone have an explanation for this? Might it have to do with a quirk in a particular text editor? I can't imagine it's all the same person, so there must be a reason... –Unint 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples of what you mean? CIreland 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's one (the diff makes it a little hard to compare, but it can be seen), and another, and another two. As you can see, the removal of numbers seems entirely incidental to the main purpose of the edits (and I just noticed that ISSN numbers were deleted as well). –Unint 15:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe that they may not have removed the dates knowingly. I have been on the receiving end of a similar issue (losing some content while adding new content in a completely different section of a page) on two occasions (that I know of) and witnessed it happen to someone else as well. But in each case, the edit that caused it was a section edit (so losing content from elsewhere had to be a technical error because you can't remove what you can't see in the edit window). Adrian M. H. 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Any ideas as to what causes it? Should I take this to technical instead? –Unint 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea at all. I stopped thinking about it when it didn't happen again. I'm not sure whether the folks at Bugzilla could offer any explanation anyway, given that, even if this is caused by a bug, it would probably be very difficult to replicate. Adrian M. H. 13:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

wep

hi, i want to wep failures and further development and brief introduction and history of wpa1 and wpa2.can please reply with the above topics. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramkalyan (talk • contribs) 09:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you want the Ref Desk (specifically, its computing section). Adrian M. H. 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on a Specific Notability Case

I'm really not sure if I can get an answer but I'd like opinions on whether the individual tracks on an album/CD deserve separate articles. Input would help me sort out my priorities on this. Here is the main article: Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (soundtrack). Note that every track has an associated article, 18 in all, which seems excessively detailed to me. Suggested courses? Or am I just being overly Deletionist and mean in my outlook on this? Pig^man 02:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're being overly deletionist. It doesn't seem like any of those articles qualify for notability. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Should I bother to try to integrate the separate articles' info into the main article? I haven't looked at all of them but the few I looked at didn't seem to contain any important information that couldn't be discarded without any real loss. Thoughts? I'm seriously thinking of speedy deleting all of these satellites if I can't find any pertinent info to move. Pig^man 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there's any crucial information in the articles; they're all just remarks about where the song plays in the film. CSD:A7 seems to apply well here, so I'd say go for it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that the "current consensus on A7 is to limit it only to people, corps, groups, bands, ... Usually non notable songs are redirected to the album containing them, per WP:ALBUM." Of course this was after I had tagged all 18 songs with speedy A7. Ah well, live and learn... Pig^man 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Good to know. I removed all the self-redirects and extra BR tags, and altered the refs on the page to act as footnotes. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

adding alt text info to ten things about images page

On this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_things_you_did_not_know_about_images_on_Wikipedia, could we please add a request for proper alternative text either as a caption or an alt attribute in the img element tag?

Folks need to know that wiki users that cannot see rely on an accurate description of the content in the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciwstudy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with Wikipedia page creation

In August I first asked for assistance in creating a new page -- but it's one I didn't want to post myself, since the subject is my place of employment. I believe my initial article satisfied WP:CORP, but an administrator editor (EdJohnston) determined that the length was too short to make a good entry, and asked me to try again.

It took a little while, but I've now expanded the piece, with much more information, and more references. It was a good deal shorter in the first place largely because I was afraid of sounding promotional or NPOV, but I've tried to avoid that as much as I can, and this version is undoubtedly more useful and informative.

For reference:

• Proposed entry for New Media Strategies
• Discussion on my Talk page

I have also notified the administrator above, but in case he is busy and in case anyone else has an opinion on the matter, I thought it would be worthwhile to post this updated request here. Thanks. --WWB 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism to watchlist

I believe there has been vandalism to my watchlist, some items added and some items deleted. Is there a history mechanism to tell exactly when and by whom this has been done? Richiar 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. —O (说 • 喝) 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No one else can even view it, unless you have been lax with your login. Do you make a backup periodically? Adrian M. H. 01:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought no one else could view it either. But it has been vandalized three times at least. Someone keeps placing "Muppets" on my watchlist, and also someone placed "reality = commodity" on my watchlist. The second occured I'm sure, because I confronted a "commodity vandal". However it was done, the watchlist was entered and tampered with.

Thanks for the suggestion to back up the watchlist. I will do so. In the meantime, some technician might want to check how vandals might gain entry to another users watchlist.

Lax with my login? No one else in my circle of friends uses or has any interest in Wikipedia. Perhaps the passcode was accessed online?Richiar 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If a page on your watchlist is moved, you end up watching the page that it was moved to (even if it's moved back). If you look at the history of the pages involved it should be clear that this has happened. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 24

September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I didn't quite understand that. A page was removed and a couple inserted. Richiar 02:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) I just noticed another editor complaining of the same thing or a similar thing under "Mysterious Edits" above. Richiar 02:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not the same problem at all; that relates directly to content removal and is unlikely to bear any relation at all to this issue. You say that one was removed: no red link in the checklist? Two were added: do you use any scripts? eg. Twinkle can watchlist pages after certain types of edit. (Just grabbing at straws as they float by.) As Rick Block has touched on, I think that moves of currently watched pages (particularly of the vandalistic variety) may cause new titles to appear. Adrian M. H. 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what happened:

1. There was a red link to "reality = commodity" which linked to a now deleted article. I removed this from my watchlist.

2. There was another red link to a bizarre word: "hagger???????" which I removed to from my watchlist. (I didn't try to track it).

3. Then there was an article that I watch that was missing from my watchlist, that someone removed.

4. Then there was a blue "Muppets" link that someone has placed on my watchlist twice after I have removed it.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by the question "do I use scripts?". Thanks. Richiar 03:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Both the "reality = commodity" and the "HAGGER????"" articles were products of recent page-move vandalism. Not sure about the other two problems but the cause may be the same thing. Also, when articles are protected, this can cause them not to appear on your watchlist until they are edited again. CIreland 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Richiar 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to undo all pages!!

I want to undo all pages!! for example, user:abcdeg(=me) date:20070315

How to?

HELP ME!! PLEASE!!! -- WonYong (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down please! What exactly do you want to do? What do you want to undo on which pages? User:Alutena^(talk) 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like he wants to undo all his edits. I'll give it a shot. Hmm..I don't really see anything particularly problematic. WonYong, can you be more specific? GlassCobra 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good evening

Hello, i'm a french wikipedian. I search someone who lives in Philadelphia. It's for taking photographies ... If he is free, can he take contact with me on fr:user:stef48 ? Perhaps exist a category for find all user living in Philadelphia, but i dont' know ! Thanks, Stef4854 18:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is Category:Wikipedians in Philadelphia, but spamming those users' talk pages would probably be considered improper. A better option would be to post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philadelphia, explaining exactly what you want a picture of and why. It's possible there is already a relevant photo that they can direct you to. Cheers, BanyanTree 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Photo_Matching_Service#Philadelphia. The one user who listed himself there has not edited for a weeks though. ssepp^(talk) 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pages Created

How can I see a list of pages which I created? Is there a userbox for it?Cosprings 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see Special:Newpages has a username field. (SEWilco 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It will only show very recent creations, though. Adrian M. H. 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

converting the Encapsulated PostScript

How do people convert the Encapsulated PostScript file at brandsoftheworld.com? (Please do answer it on my talk page) Thanks. --Jackl 14:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Posting of phone number

I recently reverted vandalism that posted the supposed phone number of a person. [17] How exactly do I go about getting that edit removed from the page's history? Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oversight - IP and the number both originate in Texas. Dureo 08:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit is toast. Thanks! Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How to handle multiple editors

How to handle misguided multiple editors (+5000 edits editors), which policies I need to consider, if they are falsely winning the majority. If 2-3 such editors get together it becomes impossible for a novice editor to quote the WP:V if there's another WP:V article quoting the opposite.Tabletaken007 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See dispute resolution. If you feel that multiple users are tag-teaming you, even if you are right, you can use various avenues on that page, such as third-opinion or a request for comment. That said, this applies even if only one person is disputign with you. But I'm not quite sure what "... a novice editor to quote the WP:V if there's another WP:V..." means. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What if the team is very huge and they already have admins on their side? Ok, the best about all the lot is, I've seen certain logs removed without any discussion. E.g. if one of this editor types here over wikipedia with their IP address as many times the cookie expires, certain posts are stamped with IP address, the entire record is removed with nothing left at all, even in the deletion logs. For example, if this message of mine is posted after the cookiee expires, they are retained. But the records of these editors are immeadiately removed. Now, we have nothing left with such editors. Tabletaken007 05:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what's with third-opinion or a request for comment, it's like take it or leave it for us.Tabletaken007 05:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do we discuss, if such things are happening? This is not Open Editing at all. How can we have a WP:CON if these have been happening.

I request, wiki to look in to these. If we really respect going with the policies. Or, Kindly clearly BAN the parts of the world where you do not wish wikipedia being edited from. This is a humble request. This is making us feel extremely bad. I hope this's does not happen with you all. Tabletaken007 06:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You "request, wiki to look in to these". Well, in the first reply to your first question, you were given links to pages in which you could make requests for particular things to be looked into. -- Hoary 06:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• If there are Administrators involved, it makes no difference. Administrators have no additional weight in disputes. If an Administrator is misusing his/her powers to gain a foothold in the dispute, then you can report it at the Incidents noticeboard.

• I'm not sure what you mean by logs. Any pages in particular in which this occurs? From what I gather, you claim Administrators are removing talk page entries (although it can be individual history copies) by anonymous users. I'm pretty sure this is not policy so a couple of diffs could be useful here. But cookies and comments are unrelated.
• Dispute resolution can be thought of as 2 or more parties rather than 2 or more editors. While it can be daunting to go into a dispute comme 1 vs. 100 (:P), disputes are not votes. Consensus is determined by strength of arguments rather than quantity of arguments. Which is where third-opinion and requests for comment come in - a (presumably) neutral party can help smooth things out.

If you have a particular issue with a debate, I'd be happy to help if possible. x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will not disclose what has happen until I am pretty sure of everything. I need to know the following.

1. What roles are wikipedia employees playing at wikipedia. If there are any employees here at wikipedia. I think they need to be around with their actual IDs or atleast clearly mention that they are wiki employees. There's no harm to have actual employees to monitor quality. But, anonymously editing with super previliges harms the enviornment. Hey it is but natural that you cannot run such big website just with novice editors like me. There are wiki real time paid employees here. And, why should experienced editors do a free job for wiki. So, it is but natural that editing is done by real employees.
2. Cheap Tac-tics. Deploying reader un-friendly resources to catch important attention is currently been currently observed. Tabletaken007 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia does not employ anyone - the Wikimedia Foundation does. There are lawyers and such that are employed by them but they are the only ones employed - but none are employed to edit Wikipedia. There are several User access levels at the moment: Developers, who tinker with the MediaWiki software; Stewards, who hold various roles and responsibilities over all Wikipedia projects (different languages, Wiktionary, etc.); Bureaucrats, who hold the role of promoting users to Administrators; and Administrators, who are simply normal users who are elected by the community (at the English Wikipedia, it's at requests for adminship), and have the abilities to protect and delete articles amongst other powers, such as blocking. I'm not sure if Developers are employed but the rest aren't. Stewards, Bureaucrats and Administrators are elected by the community. However, since Administrators, as I have said before, are simply users with a couple of extra powers that shouldn't be used to gain a foothold in normal editing (such as blocking a user you are in conflict with without good reason), they do not really need to disclose they are Administrators. Usually, they mention it on their userpages. That said, even paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation edit Wikipedia, and they do not get special treatment.
2. I'm not sure what you mean in this point. What comes to mind is tagging articles to the point where it becomes unreadable, but I'm not sure how this catches "important attention"

But don't quote me on these points. However, this entire encyclopedia is built on a giant community. It's hard to believe, but read Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is and Wikipedia:FAQ for more information. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Postal Deliveries/ Residental mail

I hope someone can help with this? What is the law concernig mail boxes? If your niebors mail is put in your mailbox is it against the law to give it to them in person or do you put it in your mailbox with the flag up hopeing the carrier figures it out. If there is a law can someone give me the statute.

Thanks ... Confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltskull62 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this page is for wikipedia users who need assistance with wikipedia issues. The proper place to ask general questions is the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Also, wikipedia cannot give out legal advice. Sorry if this wasn't much help answering your question.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp re-write

I need some help in re-writing the template at Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp to where it supports more than 10 quotes from Portal:LGBT/Quotes. User:WJBscribe created LGBT/Quotetemp but said he copied it from another Portal. He said the template only supports up to 10 quotes. I haven't a clue how to do this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with Browser Crashes

I have been working on overhauling an article. Now that it's done when I tried to update the live article and I got complaints saying that it crashed a users browser. I've tried it with Windoze XP Firefox/IE7/K-Meleon and Linux FC5/Firefox without any problems. The user having problems is running Mac OS X. He says Safari (Works sometimes) Firefox (Appears to be deathly allergic). Can someone with a Mac and OS X please check it out for me. I assure you there is nothing in it but standard Wiki-code nothing malicious. I have a ready-to-go copy in my sandbox User:Dp67/Sandboxes/rail-terms I'd like to be able to resolve the problem so I can post the article. Cheers! --Dp67 | QSO | Sandboxes 10:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 Fixed I do believe we've resolved to problem. Thanks for checking..

--Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 21:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone censor my talk page????

My talk page has been vandalised so hard that my school system blocks it for banned word. Can someone remeve the bad words??? --Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that must have been annoying. I've removed the comment, which was a personal attack. I'll leave a note explaining who left it and when. --Moonriddengirl 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering now if there a way to voluntarily restrict your user page so that only the matching account can modify it? — RJH (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and that would be pretty stupid thing to do to a talk page, right? :). Userpage can be protected, but not much can be done about talk pages. Prodego ^talk 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I did say "user page", not "talk page". Obviously it would be unsuitable for the latter. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but it is sometimes useful for other editors (and not just admins) to edit user pages. Just the other day, someone helpfully made a technical improvement to mine. Besides, restricting editing rights to the owner of each user page could be classed as a form of ownership since no one really owns their user space. Adrian M. H. 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This kind of request would probaly see faster action if posted on Wikipedia:Help Desk or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Rmhermen 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Encountering blank Image pages

If I encounter an Image page which has nothing on it, is it more important that I tag it with {{no source}} or {{no license}}? Corvus cornix 21:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say {{no source}} is more important, but that's very subjective :) There is no need to choose: see {{no source no license}} (and its dated version, {{subst:nsnld}}). Gracenotes^T § 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks, Gracenotes, I didn't know about that. Corvus cornix 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

paul addis bio

I wrote a *very* carefully neutral 2-paragraph bio of Paul Addis about 3 weeks ago. Its apparently been deleted and I can find no trace of talk or information as to why. no courtesy notice on my home talk page or anything.

does anyone have any clue as to what happened? or can suggest to me a method of finding such? (I've tried extensively)

does wikipedia not provide for any notice to an author when a page s/he wrote has been deleted? (did I miss something important?)

thanks for your help.

jvol Jvol 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you checked the log yet? [18] And, as you can see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Addis, you had from 30th Aug to 2nd Sep to contribute. Did you not view the article at all during this time or see it on your watchlist? Adrian M. H. 00:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There was also an extensive DR discussion which endorsed the deletion. Corvus cornix 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Autobiographical articles

maybe a stupid question i'm not sure, but i found this list before of articles that didn't have npov because they were written by the subject of the article (i.e. autobiographical). My question is does anyone know where this list is located? Thanks in advance.Ragingbullfrog 11:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult. You are welcome to investigate the items there and to make edits to the list if needed. This list is also kept on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as the first item. If a possible COI needs more eyes on it, open a report at WP:COIN and ask for input. EdJohnston 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your help, but this was not exactly what i was looking for it was a category page with autobiographical articles marked for deletion. I still can't find it anywhere. To be honest i only wanted to look at it because i find these articles quite amusing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragingbullfrog (talk • contribs) 09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You want Category:Importance or significance not asserted pages for speedy deletion. This is where pages go that are marked with the 'db-bio' speedy deletion tag. While reviewing this category, you could perform a public service if you would rescue any article that has been speedy-tagged incorrectly. EdJohnston 17:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for Admins & Users to Interview

I am currently working on a thesis about Wikipedia and I'm hoping to interview some admins and users about how it all works. More specifically, I want to learn more about the structure of Wikipedia (rules, policies, etc.) and how one moves from user status to admin. I've already read the relevant Wikipedia pages on these topics but I think it would be helpful to also talk to someone. If you are interested in helping, please contact me. I will not reveal your identity or use any information without proper consent.

Thanks! Pbui 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Template vandalism

Karma shows "philip is so cooollllll" as the first line. The text isn't on the page, so I suspect template vandalism, but it's not on any of the templates on that page either. I'm confused. ♥ Fredil 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else has fixed it but it was vandalism in Template:Sikhi. MilborneOne 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That would explain it. Thanks :) ♥ Fredil 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple cleanup template

Hey. I'm blanking right now, and I can't find it anywhere; what is the template for multiple cleanup templates? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be looking for {{articleissues}} which is one of those listed at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. EdJohnston 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's it. Must've glossed over that one. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cliff B.jpg

Hello, i work a lot on Wikipedia fr, and Commons, and someone just upload this image on Commons. This image is very nice, but can we trust the user ? I search it on google and i find nothing. I dont know if i must add a {{nsd}} or not. Thanks to take a look at this image, and his copy on Commons (under the same name). bayo 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp re-write

I need some help in re-writing the template at Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp to where it supports more than 10 quotes from Portal:LGBT/Quotes. User:WJBscribe created LGBT/Quotetemp but said he copied it from another Portal. He said the template only supports up to 10 quotes. I haven't a clue how to do this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible WP:OWN problem and content dispute

I'd like some outside parties to take a look at Talk:Ernest Emerson and the parent article. The article to me reeks of fansite and advertisement; but every time it gets tagged the "owners" fix it the way they want. Am I being too harsh? The darn thing looks to me like a long ad for the excellence of this wonderful, saintlike figure of knifesmithery, and I want to make sure I'm not jaundiced against it/him somehow. --Orange Mike 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright on TV test patterns?

I'm wondering what the correct license tag would be for TV test patterns? Have a look at one I've uploaded [19]. I uploaded it with a fair use rationale and license, but I think it may actually be {{PD-US-no notice}}? There's no copyright notice on it and it is the actual test pattern, not a recreation. The Parsnip! 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How to add to the list of languages supported by the <source> tag?

The source tag currently supports the following languages:

actionscript, ada, apache, applescript, asm, asp, autoit, bash, blitzbasic, bnf, c,
c_mac, caddcl, cadlisp, cfdg, cfm, cpp, cpp-qt, csharp, css, d, delphi, diff, div,
dos, eiffel, fortran, freebasic, gml, groovy, html4strict, idl, ini, inno, io, java,
java5, javascript, latex, lisp, lua, matlab, mirc, mpasm, mysql, nsis, objc, ocaml,
ocaml-brief, oobas, oracle8, pascal, perl, php, php-brief, plsql, python, qbasic,
rails, reg, robots, ruby, sas, scheme, sdlbasic, smalltalk, smarty, sql, tcl, text,
thinbasic, tsql, vb, vbnet, vhdl, visualfoxpro, winbatch, xml, xpp, z80

This is hopelessly insufficient (!), so how does one add to the list? nemo 11:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More can be added when, well, more are coded :) Syntax highlighting is done by the GeSHi library (website). MediaWiki uses CSS to customize GeSHi with MediaWiki:Geshi.css. If you want to help add more languages and are familiar with PHP, you can look at the code for languages already supported to make syntax highlighting files for other languages. If not, you can probably make a request for a language on the GeSHi website. Gracenotes^T § 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pages Created

How can I see a list of pages which I created? Is there a userbox for it?Cosprings 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see Special:Newpages has a username field. (SEWilco 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It will only show very recent creations, though. Adrian M. H. 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism

See the page Culoz (as it stands now). The content that's there obviously doesn't belong there, but assuming that what it says is correct, someone needs to devote some attention to this. Further, if the page was in fact automatically generated, this leads to the possibility that there are other pages with the same sort of errors. Hopefully someone more experienced than me will know how best to proceed. Me, I spent half an hour at Culoz station changing trains once, and that's the limit of my acquaintance with the place. -- 207.176.159.90 01:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

They should have posted to the talk page, so I just pasted their comments over. I have not fixed the errors to which they alluded, since I know nothing about the subject. Adrian M. H. 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have notified WikiProject France. Adrian M. H. 11:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Succession Box Standardization in dire need of contributors

After a period of extensive reorganisation, WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS) are ready to adopt a more serious attitude on the ongoing struggle for the improvement of this encyclopaedia. With improved templates, a new set of guidelines, and enhanced structures, we shall attempt to fine-tune our template system and provide even more detailed instructions for all those who want to help perfect articles by fixing those useful little boxes at their bottom. And, of course, fixing the boxes themselves in an organised and controlled manner is also one of SBS's aims.

As all active WikiProjects, SBS is too in constant need of contributors. Furthermore, this specific project not only requires the presence of a certain number of people in order to approve policy and do proper editing work, but has most unfortunately been suffering from chronic understaffing. The danger of SBS coming to a grinding halt is a very real one, and thus the necessity for participants is even more pronounced and urgent than in other similar cases.

If you are yourself interested in succession boxes, all you have to do is visit our project's main page and have a look around; if you know someone who would like to help, tell them about us. There are tasks for everyone: the more knowledgeable in HTML may want to help refine the templates, while others may have more ideas about formatting guidelines or defining categorisation criteria, which will be discussed in our talk page. And updating and improving the thousands of succession boxes across the mainspace is something everyone can do. You need not be experienced; you can learn whatever you need by reading our help pages. And if you have any questions, we will be glad to answer them.

So, if you decide that you want to contribute more actively, you may join our cause and share some of our workload. Remember: the more we are, the faster we shall progress, and the higher our work's quality will be! Waltham, The Duke of 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will probably help out as and when I have time, since the Wikiprojects with which I am involved often use succession boxes. I will post a note for the other members as well. Adrian M. H. 01:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We truly appreciate your offer. I your connections shall hopefully prove to be useful, especially when it comes to cooperating with other WikiProjects and editing chains of succession under other "jurisdictions". However, what you can do yourself can be of even greater importance. For starters, you can comment and/or vote on the various proposals in the Project's talk page and look for inaccuracies or omissions that you can point out in our Guidelines. And if feel like it, you can study our Documentation page and learn how to make correct succession boxes. After that, things are easy and all you need is the correct mood and some time in your hands. I hope that you shall find SBS a good working environment and succession boxes an engaging work subject. Again, thank you for joining, and welcome to Succession Box Standardization.

Now (lest we forget what we are here for), anyone else to join? Waltham, The Duke of 21:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption and possible Harassment

i've already opened a large number of cases regarding User:PalestineRemembered and i feel a bit self conscience regarding the opening of another about other users.

comment - i'm finding this editor's commentary disruptive and borderline WP:HAR. not sure on where to go from here though.

background

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eleland#incivility
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin/Archive_4#April_6
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaakobou#Deletion_.28archival.29_of_live_thread -> AN/I opened against me

current issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#second_para_again

Comments

I don't see the issue. It looks like you two have tangled before with questionable conduct from both sides. You are both long term editors who must be used to some passionate disagreements in the topics where you participate. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Shake it off and move-on --Kevin Murray 11:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Murray, could you please point out what parts of my conduct are questionable? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is really much ado about nothing. I was not specifically looking for flaws in your behavior, I was more focused on your complaint about the actions of the other editor, and analyzing his behavior. From what I remember in reviewing the sections you referenced: (1) you selectively archived from the talk page of a contentious topic which may have distorted the perception of readers joining the discussion, and (2) you seem to have a hair trigger about claiming incivility, which is counter productive. In your request above you even admit being "self conscience" about bringing up this issue. Your instincts are correct. I'm not saying that the other person is blameless, but I do think this is overly dramatic. The world is a tough place, and this is among the tougher places for timid souls, rightly or wrongly. It seems to me that you should contact this person away from the contentious article and try to develop a person to person relationship. WP editors are part of the same team; the goal should be writing a superior encyclopedia, not winning every POV battle. Maybe you should seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion on the matter at hand. --Kevin Murray 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that in the future Keven, that you don't make claims like that without backing them up. Lets try to build an encyclopedia here. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Eagle I did back up my assertion and believe that neither party is blameless. Please read through the talk pages of that mess of Jenin. It is highly contentious from both sides and the complaining editor has run afoul of several other contributors. I think if there is a pattern there may be a problem. What is your beef with me? --Kevin Murray 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Murray, just because a certain article brings out the worst out of some editors who cannot remain civil or reasnably neutral, does not automatically turn some blame in my direction. this user has at one point joined in with one of these "seveal other contributors" on the accusation that i might be a war criminal, trolling around wikipedia revising history (it's mentioned on the incivility notices). your statement was both false and upsetting and to top it off, you've managed to remove all validity from my fairly well presented public notice with a mere swing of a key. so thank you for all three. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you have a case for this, then you should prepare a better supported presentation. I did not find the sections which you cited above as compelling. I think that your statement:"you've managed to remove all validity from my fairly well presented public notice with a mere swing of a key" is evidence that you have a tendancy toward overly dramatic sensitivity. --Kevin Murray 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Murray, you don't have to admit that you've made a judgment error, however, it is never helpful to insist on a point when it's clear that it is a false one - "What is your beef with me?" perhaps you are the one who's overly dramatic and sensitive? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to largely agree with Kevin's points here. Firstly, we can't be expected to comment on stuff which you didn't mention and link to. If there are further examples then that's unfortunate but we can't be expected to use them in our analysis if they're not linked to. Also, there was some unfortunate behaviour on both sides (unfortunate doesn't mean against policy, it just means the behaviour was likely counterproductive in achieving consensus, peace and civility). It appears that you selectively archived the talk page and you also appear to be perhaps a little too quick to accuse others of incivility etc. You obviously have a history with this editor but even if his behaviour is as bad as you say it is, it doesn't mean you have to throw accusations around immedietly. It's far better most of the time to ignore the occasinal borderline comment and hope the editor calms down and reacts more rationally in the future. BTW, whether any of this behaviour on either side was accidental or had a sinister purpose doesn't really matter, best just assume good faith. And which side was 'worse' doesn't really matter. Consider whether you agree that your behaviour is unlikely to have helped. If you do, then perhaps this drop this for now and try to think of ways to handle the situation in the future. For example, if you archive a page in good faith but inadvertently archive in a way which can be considered selective then simply apologise and ignore any incivility and also take on board what went wrong with the archival. Perhaps consider asking people if it's okay to use a bot (although bots may archive out of order which can also be a problem in some instance) instead. If a editor makes a slightly incivil comments, perhaps ignore the issue for a few minutes or longer so that you don't overeact. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes react too quickly and in a counterproductive manner. It can be hard particularly when we have an unpleasant history with an editor. But I think it's important to acknowledge that even if a reaction is understandable, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Nil Einne 11:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I would have appreciated a notification of this complaint when it was made. Secondly, I acknowledge having made incivil comments towards this user on several occasions, and have already apologized, an apology which I understood at the time to have been accepted. Aside from that, I cannot discern what this is about, or why it was appropriate to bring it here without contacting me. Enlighten me if you can. <eleland/talkedits> 21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, your heartfelt apology was remarkably apologetic to the point where it seemed more like your intent was for it to be a "sophisticated" insult. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this looks very much like an outrageous abuse of process by an editor who systematically harrasses others. I'm not the worst victim (as he claims above) by any means - perhaps he's just trying to "poison the well" against what I'm going to tell you next:
• Jaakobou has a long history of harrassment of people on their TalkPages. 6 months ago (he's only been here just over a year!) he was doing it to two admins. He was taken to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents and blocked for it. Two more admins took up the case, eventually letting User:Jaakobou off with these warnings "If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity." and "The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future".
• That particular case of harrassment on TalkPages only exploded because he'd been monstrously harrassing two other editors, including publishing the personal details of one of them, see here and here.
• I'm not the kind of person to make official complaints against others, I'll wait for someone else to express it in perhaps more temperate terms than I'm capable of. But the next time this editor goes too far and is brought up before his peers, I think we'll discover he's done almost nothing other than damage articles and drive good editors out of the project. The list of the latter alone probably runs to double figures by now. PR^talk 13:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a good place for this issue

Lengthy disputes about civility don't belong on this page, in my opinion. Consider following the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Or ask User:Eagle 101 for advice on the next step, since he is an admin who has commented at Talk:Battle of Jenin. EdJohnston 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Need confirmation of phrase in web page

An editor can't seem to find the phrase "to report for a flight physical not later than May 14" in the text at this web page. You might check how many seconds it takes you to find the phrase, then help reassure the editor whether or not the phrase is indeed there at: Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#Copy of "Mother's Day" talk moved from Talk:Killian documents. Thank you. (SEWilco 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Tell him to use Control+F. Should take him all of two seconds. Adrian M. H. 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether he's doing a Search or not, it's taking him days to find the phrase. (SEWilco 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Yup, he still can't find the phrase. [20] Can someone help him confirm whether it is there or not? (SEWilco 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

I didn't even have to use CTRL+F, it was one of the first ones I noticed as soon as the page loaded. 4th paragraph and the line appears almost right above my browser's status bar. I'd say he's probably deliberately not finding the phrase, especially considering the back and forth going on about the article under discussion. Collectonian 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. It seems like he's just trying to be difficult. I see he's had some run-ins with the admins before... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. And he's threatened flood the page with stuff and that this is some sort of battle front. (SEWilco 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Those of you who found the above phrase are invited to mention it in User talk:Charles Matthews#SEWilco - Revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie. The editor now remembers that I actually was using a different phrase, thus I must have changed the above phrase in the Wikipedia database. If your memories fit the above phrase it would be appreciated to have a report that your memory matches what Wikipedia is displaying. (SEWilco 22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Umm...we're not talking about the phrase "appearing" in the article, we're talking about your Wiki article entry attributing a quote by Killian to Campenni and your refusing to rephrase it (this last little "business" not quite counting....) Whatever, let's see what some poking around shows.... -BC aka Callmebc 22:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Subject with more than one definition

I am considering improving the article on wheatgrass. However there is more than one defintion of wheatgrass and I think there should be more than one article on it. There are many different wheatgrass plants that fall under the grass (Poaceae) family. However, there is also wheatgrass defined as the indoor planting of wheatberry seeds in 2 inches of soil for approximately 10 days. The young wheatgrass plants are juiced for consumption and is related only in the sense that it is a member of the grass family. None of the other wheatgrasses are commonly juiced for consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.178.105 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Add sections to the article for each type of wheatgrass. If a section for one type gets too large then you or someone might split it off to another article. This is not a paper encyclopedia and articles also don't have to fit on a single page. Start adding material and see where the article goes. (SEWilco 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. I'm afraid I have another question. The topic again is wheatgrass (WG). The problem is how to list the different definitions of WG. First there is WG, a common name for a number of plants in the grass family (I recently created that article). Then there is Wheatgrass juice and powder. These two could easily fall under the same title 'Wheatgrass' since this is how Wheatgrass juice and powder are popularly known. So how do you title two different articles with the same title? 69.177.178.105 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic case calling for a disambiguation (dab) page. (See Wikipedia:Disambiguation) I was just going to suggest a method, but the situation seemed rather complicated so I just went ahead and turned Wheatgrass into a dab. I left out most of the list of species so you could figure out if you want to create those genera pages or simply list them on the dab in the format that I've started. (Please don't use HTML markup when wikimarkup exists.) The most common meaning, if there is one, should get a direct link so, if wheatgrass juice is what most people refer to when talking about wheatgrass (I have no idea, though a Google search may be helpful), you should probably move wheatgrass to wheatgrass (disambiguation) and then move wheatgrass juice on top of wheatgrass. Wikipedia:Disambiguation should have all the info you need. - BanyanTree 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. When you said "and then move wheatgrass juice on top of wheatgrass" do you mean move wheatgrass juice to wheatgrass? 71.235.33.187 08:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the lingo. It occurs to me that only accounts older than four days can see and use the "move" tab at the top of the screen, but you seem to have an account that you are forgetting to log into, assuming that you are the same user. If you do decide that the juice deserves the direct link, don't forget to add {{otheruses}} to the top of wheatgrass so readers can get to wheatgrass (disambiguation). - BanyanTree 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if my questions seem elementary. On the dab you created, you didn't title it Wheatgrass (disambiguation). Shouldn't that be the title? Also, if I decide to make wheatgrass a direct link, should I placed just one {{otheruses}} on the top of the wheatgrass page? Anthon01 19:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and handled it and formatted appropriately. There should be no reason for you to make further moves. Disambiguation notes in a title are not part of the actual name of the article. Please do not add excessive disambiguation statements, as readers can quickly jump to their desired page as long as there isn't a mass of administrative statements on the top of the page that they have to wade through. Similarly, please make moves cleanly to the desired target page, rather than through other pages, as you did through Wheatgrass (archive). - BanyanTree 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. "Disambiguation notes in a title are not part of the actual name?" I'm not sure why you mention this here?

(Paraphrase) "Excessive disambiguation?" Is that for future reference or did I do that somewhere? Are you talking on the main WG page or the dab page?

(Paraphrase) "Make moves cleanly?" I tried to rename the WGJ page back to WG, but I couldn't because there already was a WG page. I tried to archive that page thinking that would free up that WG title for me to move WGJ to WG. It didn't work, and I could see why afterward (redirection). Anthon01 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page is missing from the WG page. Could you correct that? Anthon01 02:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for mapmaking help

Hello all! Sorry if this isn't the place for this ... the very nice map of the Baltimore Light Rail system (Image:BaltimoreLightRail.png) is now out of date, as the Maryland MTA has changed the routing. (An updated map is here.) I don't have the graphic skills with which to fix said map, and the wikipeidian who created it appears to now be inactive (a request posted to his talk page has gone unanswered). Wonder if any of you graphic-savvy types would want to take on the redrawing effort! --Jfruh (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, never mind, this has now been fixed. --Jfruh (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you need any map work in the future, WikiProject Maps should be a good place to ask. Adrian M. H. 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles

Because of a translation error, Isaac_Abrabanel is the same person as Judah Leon Abravanel. At least, I'm 99% sure. Both articles are well written - what is the Wikipedia policy here? Delete one or the other? Merging them is beyond my expertise in obscure 13th century philosophers.... Thanks for advice! Jonathan Stokes 06:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Merging and moving pages. When placing merge templates, be sure to specify where the merge discussion should take place. If there is consensus to merge, the responsibility for the merge belongs to the person who started the discussion, unless someone else agrees to do so. Once the content from one is merged into the other, simply turn the unused page into a redirect. - BanyanTree 01:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at this again, and they are indeed two different people - father and son. Duh. I need to not edit past 1am. Jonathan Stokes 07:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on candor and helping with 3O

Hey. So.. I've been giving my opinions here and there over on WP:3O. Today I gave an opinion on notability, and one of the two people engaged in the debate is relatively new and still believes his or her opinion is valid, whereas I'm pretty sure it goes against Wiki standards. I'm not here asking for help on that page; my question is, aside from strongly urging the user to do things a certain way, what else can I do? If the user is stubborn, do I just say, "Well, whatever, do what you want" and walk away, or do I stay active on the page and escalate the issue to RfC, etc.? Do I add the post back to 3O and ask for a fourth opinion? What should my level of involvement be? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that a sort of "sixth sense for disputes" is helpful and it does get easier with experience. You may want to keep a log, as I do, of your DR work so that you can review your own methods after the fact. Sometimes, quoting policy/guidelines and making it clear that they need to stop being problematic is the best approach; sometimes, you can make better progress by continuing to explain in as many ways as necessary. Sometimes, it is better to walk away fairly promptly. It may be better to take another item off your to-do list than try to explain a concept that they just don't (or won't) get. Keep in communication with the other party (the non-problematic one) as the onus is more on them to escalate it if they see a need to do so. Adrian M. H. 16:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of Fictional Characters

I'm having a bit of trouble conceptualizing what is appropriate or not for articles on fictional characters from TV shows. The article that specifically brings me here is Shax. How much detail is acceptable? When does recounting episode appearances in great detail turn into original research? I've looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article and Wikipedia:Television episodes as well as Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I guess part of what bothers me is the lack of reliable sources in this particular article. I feel reluctant to rain on a fan's parade but this seems excessively original. I'd like thoughts and pointers to guidelines relevant to the situation. I'm not asking anyone to take on the article, I just want general feedback on situations like this one. Pig^man 20:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A user has just created Shax (Charmed) so it probably deserves only a disambiguation link on the top of the page.

A while back, I trimmed the trivia section on Anubis, explaining the edit on the talk page. Within about a week, another user had removed the rest. Despite some protests on Talk:Anubis about how important it is to include mention of TV shows and video games since they comprise such a large proportion of so many articles on figures in myth and ancient religion (perhaps the most unintentionally withering criticism of Wikipedia I've seen), the mildest disagreement resulted in the section staying gone. Frankly, you could probably remove the section by referring to Wikipedia:Trivia sections and making sure to repeat the rationale on the talk page for later editors wondering if they should add the appearance in the video game they're playing, though anons will always wander through and add more. - BanyanTree 09:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

need help looking for a place to rent

Hi all, i will be moving to the area very soon and was searching online for apartment buildings nearby, but decided to ask the people living in the area for their opnion first!! :) what do you think would be a nice place to rent.

i'm looking for 1-2 bedroom apartment (anything but shared accomodation) budget no more than 1300 incl something that is either close to nature or a nice view from the balcony no more than half an houre drive from 401 and donmills rd

emails welcome at <email removed>

Thanks all for your feedback

Fidaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.25.172 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We're sorry, but you probably are at the wrong site for that type of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or social site. You should try a site that specializes in your area, or contact your local real estate agent. — TKD::Talk 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals

A relatively new WikiProject is currently working toward improving all animal and zoology related articles. If either topic is an interest of yours, please add your name to the participants page and check the task list for areas that are in need of work. Thanks, Justin ^chat 03:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Midlothian, Texas

There's a giant white space between the first sentence of the Midlothian, Texas article and the rest of the introductory paragraph, with the infobox taking up the right hand side of the screen. I'm viewing this is IE 7. Anybody have any ideas how to clean this up? Corvus cornix 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It needed a bunch fix, so I took care of that, but other than the previously messy edit links, it was fine. You should try a better browser ; ) Adrian M. H. 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no choice from where I am now.  :) Thanks. Corvus cornix 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine for me in IE7 --Rehcsif 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, yes, thanks to Adrian's fix. Corvus cornix 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The TDC Sweepstakes! Win a $100 Amazon.com gift certificate!

Hate Sockpuppets? Want to cleanup Wikipedia? Want to win a fabulous prize? Then go to User:TDC/Prize for more information. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

1. I recently edited Travis Hansen. After the editing the external links and categories doesn't show on the page (the page isn't categorized on the categories associated). 2.I wont to merge the the articles Gorgias (general) and Gorgias (Syrian general), both discussing the same person. I suggested a merge ages ago, no one complied or any admin obliged. --ArnoldPettybone 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Travis Hansen is the closing tag for the reference <ref/> should be </ref>. Keith D 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The merge certainly makes sense to me as they are indeed about the same person. So if you want to merge them and no objections have been raised for months, get to it ;-) FYI, suggesting a merge doesn't mean someone will comply nor will an admin usually go do it...usually its the person who proposes the merge who will end up being the one to do it. Check the merge info if you need help on how to do it. From the naming conventions, it seems like Gorgias (general) should be the name used with Gorgias (Syrian general) merged into it and set up as a redirect. Collectonian 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and Harassment

I've got a couple of Wiki admins (User:Ronz and User:Shot info) tag-teaming me to harass and stalk me across several wikis. They are both claiming to do so on the basis of "policy" violations but both of them refuse to follow policy for their actions. They're also engaging in threats as well as accusing other editors of being sockpuppets/meatpuppets in order to justify their actions. They're even removing valid comments from those editors explaining their actions!

Background and current issues

1. Talk:ITIL v3 and ITIL v3
2. Talk:Flybd5#More_on_ITIL_v3 and everything below.
3. Bede BD-5 and Talk:Bede BD-5#Advert_tag and everything below. In particular, look at the comments from other editors complaining about the actions of both User:Ronz and User:Shot info.
4. Jim Bede for further pattern of stalking and harassment.
5. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Flybd5
6. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.bd5.com

There are several things being done here, aside from following me to my edits and talk pages. The edits are being made to the articles to remove long-standing links and info without any attempt at discussion or consensus. This in and of itself is a pattern of disruption, exacerbated by the placement of advert tags to further inflame the issue (the subject of at least one long comment thread from one other editor pointing out the disruptive nature of that action in this context). Both of these users believe it is their right to make edits without following any sort of policy on the process to make changes.

User:Ronz in particular is continuing a pattern of making accusations of advertising, first alleging the BD-5 Network web site is commercial, when it is not. Then he claims that having an AdSense link makes it commercial, as if now we have to look at every external link on Wikipedia and blow it away if it has a link to an AdSense account. Then he makes accusations of "business relationships" on the basis of a single link I provided to a disabled person who has a small business selling digitized copies of the aircraft's construction plans. It goes on and on, with User:Shot info lecturing everyone on the rules everyone else must follow, except him and User:Ronz.

I want to point out very clearly that I do not have an issue with being challenged on links, etc. but I do have an issue with admins running rooughshod over articles, threatening and attempting to intimidate people, accusing other editors of sockpuppetry and all sorts of other things, all in an attempt to impose their will on the community. This is grossly inappropriate behavior for admins. Flybd5` —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:39, 10 October 2007

If I may comment some more to this point, please note that I too have experienced the tag team harrassment efforts of Ronz and Shot info. The brunt of it comes from Ronz. I have found him to be a bully and a troll. A look through his recent postings on my talk page will show anyone who cares to see the tactics this guy employs. I hope some kind of warning to Ronz and company comes from this posting here. TheDoctorIsIn 01:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you made an RFC about the issue? Adrian M. H. 14:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Define "RFC", please. Flybd5 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? RFC. At least it answers my question, and facilitates a suggestion: if the issues are ongoing/current, open an RFC about it. Adrian M. H. 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why duplicate the complaint in multiple locations? That seems counterproductive to me. Flybd5 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a dispute that involves user conduct, for which RFC is generally the most appropriate venue. Adrian M. H. 18:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Flydbd5, if you start an RFC, let me know how I can participate. Ronz has been bullying me for a long time and continues to. I would like to see how the community feels about his uncivil behavior. TheDoctorIsIn 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the same way. I support admins making necessary edits to prevent spammers from ruining Wikipedia, but I object to overzealous admins making across the board edits to valid material that belongs in the article. In fact, just as spammers make unnecessary contributions to articles, guys like Ronz do the opposite, they block necessary and pertinent information from being included thereby dumbing down Wikipedia that much more. Ronz has made a number of edits to the Sybian (see discussion) article, and even though several other admins have supported the contributions I have made, he insists that he is right and will not accept any other outcome. Furthermore, when asked to provide support to his arguments for the deletions, he is quick to either change his arguments or he simply dismisses the request. His arrogance can even be summed up with his "Good luck with that" quote -Buttysquirrel 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

unwonted sense equal nonsense ?

lets review this edition 24.15.123.48 08:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• What is unwonted sense? I can see how the section "PCT is interdisciplinary conception" lacked neutrality or can be considered promotional of the theory. I'm less sure about "other early suporters of continuity". Try asking User:Dbachmann for details. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I came across this vandal User talk:38.112.113.3. I reverted one instance but there seems to be many more. Could someone else go thru the history and deal with it. Cheers Nil Einne 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they have all been dealt with. Adrian M. H. 10:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to say and I'm saying it

Who said these words?? Please help me out. I'm doing an assignment on JOhn Cage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.34.57 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you try google?--chaser - t 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, but I'm just not sure he was the first to say it. It has come to my min that I might be confusing it with Socrate "The only thing I know, is that I know nothing". I've decided not to pursue it anyway. But thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.34.57 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags removed on unsourced article

This article VampireFreaks.com doesn't show how it would satisfy WP:WEB and use only one primary source as a passing reference (the other reference was the site's own homepage url!). But when tagged for notability and primary sources, tags are just immediately removed. Looks like the article is owned by its self-described community. Some impartial eyeballs would be useful on this. 62.147.39.223 00:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Try starting a discussion by explaining your concerns on the discussion. Conversations via revert edit summaries rarely end well. Also, if you think it should go to AFD, take it to AFD. Toothless threats to delete an article are lame. - BanyanTree 05:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The concerns were clearly explained both by edit summaries quoting WP:WEB and the contents of the tags: This article currently doesn't pass WP:WEB and use only one primary source, an interview of the founder. It's basic policy that doesn't need discussion with a band of meatpuppets sent here by the website. It was already deleted in 2005 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampirefreaks when its only claim to notoriety was hosting the profile of the Dawson College shooting killer. Since, it was recreated under a different name to bypass the AFD, and the shooting incident expunged from the article. I'm only a wikignome so I can't make AFDs, but since they don't even want the regular tags or improve their article, I've informed the bypassed AFD's nominator and closing admins. 62.147.38.190 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiGnomes can start AFDs, but anons cannot. If you feel strongly enough about it, you'll create an account, which is more anonymous anyways. I still don't see why you think a revert war with "a band of meatpuppets" is going to be productive. - BanyanTree 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Creating a user page

Hi, I'm new here and was wondering how I can set up my own user page. I'm not quite sure where to begin. I've checked out the tutorial and played around in the sandbox but those things don't seem to make the same kind of layout as other user pages I've seen. Any help and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. JMlover 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject User Page Help. Adrian M. H. 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See Also Section

I've just created a new template: {{Seealsosection}}

I've designed it to belong in the "See also" section to provide a link to the various sister projects (and portals). I was wanting a little help, or maybe just a few more eyes looking over the templat. I've transcluded it in a few different types of pages to make sure it works and I've had no issues so far. The reason I've created the template (if you were wondering) is because I think having five boxes bounding together with "portal", "see this on wikiquote", "Commons", "Wikispecies", "Wikinews article" etc etc etc. This way it makes them into a list, still featuring the sister project/portal logo subtley.

So again, if someone/some people can glance at this, make sure there's nothing missing/poorly coded (I'm still getting used to running the extended Parsing Functions, so you may have to excuse how I code) and of course, if there's anything generally you think would look good to be implemented. Just so you know, I have NOT included an option to provide a piped link in the template, because see also sections (like disambiguation pages) should only ever list the article name.

Let me know what you think! --lincalinca 04:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer (also in the box) "wikibooks:abc" over "abc on Wikibooks", etc., the second link is less needed, and one may accidentally press it when one wants the first.--Patrick 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Created Pages

How can I see a list of pages I created with my account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosprings (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All your contributions are here: Special:Contributions/Cosprings GlassCobra (Review) 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this. I want to see a list of only pages which I created.Cosprings 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're out of luck. There's a script on the toolserver is supposed to do this, but I can never get it to work: here. The other alternative is to search through your contribs for "created". Because you don't use edit summaries, new pages get an automatic summary of "Created page with <stuff>". May be easier doing this 5k at a time, like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

According to your link, Angus, I don't exist. :( GlassCobra 07:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with Template:Widescreen monitor resolutions

Can someone please help me with this template:

	x (width)	y (height)	Pixels (Mpx)	Aspect ratio	Proportion difference of total pixels							Typical sizes (inch)	Non-wide version	Note
Name					WXGA	WXGA+	WSXGA+	WUXGA	UW-UXGA	WQHD	WQXGA
WXGA	1280	800	1.024	1.6	—	−21%	−42%	−56%	−63%	−72%	−75%	15–19	XGA
WSXGA/WXGA+	1440	900	1.296	1.6	+27%	—	−27%	−44%	−53%	−65%	−68%	15–19	XGA+
WSXGA+	1680	1050	1.764	1.6	+72%	+36%	—	−23%	−36%	−52%	−57%	20–22	SXGA+
WUXGA	1920	1200	2.304	1.6	+125%	+78%	+31%	—	−17%	−38%	−44%	23–28	UXGA	Displays 1920×1080 video with slight letterbox
UW-UXGA	2560	1080	2.765	2.37	+170%	+113%	+57%	+20%	—	−25%	−32%	29, 34	SXGA+
WQHD	2560	1440	3.686	1.778	+260%	+184%	+109%	+60%	+33%	—	−10%	27
WQXGA	2560	1600	4.096	1.6	+300%	+216%	+132%	+78%	+48%	+11%	—	30+	QXGA	Complements portrait UXGA

I want to make it smaller and more attractive so that it can be placed on all the different widescreen monitor resolution articles (i.e. Wide XGA, WSXGA Wide XGA+, WSXGA+, WUXGA, and WQXGA). Also the content of the "uses" column needs work. Perhaps that column should be eliminated altogether; what do you think? Captain Zyrain 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions, but I'll bring them up over at the talk page of the template. --lincalinca 03:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated blanking a talk page by anonymous users

On the page Talk:IMesh, a discussion I had regards to changes which were made has been repeatedly blanked. Since, I assume, it's been made clear that the information would not be included in the article, anonymous users have repeatedly blanked the discussion, and I've tried every trick I know to get them to stop. Notifying them on their talk page, warning them on their talk page, including reasons why I keep reverting it in the summary, including hidden text in the page... so far, nothing seems to have made them stop trying to remove the discussion. While it's not particularly destructive, it is annoying to have to repeatedly revert the discussion's blanking. I don't want (or think you even CAN) to protect the talk page, banning the user is pretty pointless since I'm pretty certain whoever is doing this is using proxies... any ideas? -FrYGuY 08:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I nominated both article and Talk page to be semi-protected at WP:RPP, but it was declined. They suggested that there might be only two anons and that going to AIV was better. Pursue that if you wish, since now you can cite RPP's opinion in a report at AIV. Having a second look at the article, I think AfD might be considered. Does anyone believe that IMesh is notable? The article seems to have no reliable sources that testify to its importance. EdJohnston 04:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist editing by other editors?

Is it possible to edit someone else's watchlist? I have reason to suspect mine has been edited: I check it occasionally and over the last few months I sometimes see a redlinked page whose title is obviously a "vandalous" page. While I do patrol newpages sometimes and nominate for speedy where appropriate, I almost always leave messages on the original author's page to inform them about the CSD. When looking at those pages I can track the names of the pages I put up for SD, and I do not see the suspect titles.

If it isn't possible, then my memory/diligence with informing editors of CSD notices isn't perfect. But if it is possible, would there be a way to watchlist the watchlist [sic]? Is there any substantial drawback to not doing this and risking a lot of nonsense/vandalous names in the watchlist?

Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If somebody moves a page that's on your Watchlist, the new, moved-to, page name will show up in your Watchlist. If the page gets moved back to its correct place and the vandalized page name is deleted, I guess the redlink stays in your Watchlist. Corvus cornix 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, OK. Maybe that is what happened. I'll try to confirm that the next time I see a silly title there. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Move vandalism gets reverted and deleted very quickly because it is so blatant. If you redlink the name of the deleted article here, an admin can look at the history and tell you if it is a result of move vandalism. - BanyanTree 01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need an admin, if you can hypothecise which article it is, check that article's history. --lincalinca 03:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mirroring Wikipedia

I am a graphic design student studying graphic design at the Gerrit Rietveld Academie in Amsterdam. I am currrently attempting to create a duplicate of Wikipedia minus it's content, showing only links (see for an example — http://69.89.31.135/~philbabe/wiki/index.php?title=Mirror)

This has no practical purpose and is an answer to a conceptual brief. It will not be on a commercial website and will be shown only part of a presentation to my class and within my personal portfolio.

So my question is, is it possible to mirror Wikipedia's content directly from the interent ('live' I suppose). I am aware that it is possible to download a 'dump' but I am not completely sure of the technicalities of this, and time is also an issue as the deadline for this project is soon.

Any advice and help is much appreciated...

—P. Baber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbaber (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Remote loading. Remote loading is considered an unacceptable use of Wikimedia server resources. ssepp^(talk) 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What if you simply download the wikimedia software and install it (it's only like 15 MB, I think)? Graphically, it may not be quite the same, but it's fully customisable, so you could download the files and use them for non-commercial purposes, as long as you adequately mark them under the appropriate fair use guidelines. --lincalinca 03:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help on creating a new entry.

How do I create a new entry in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdo2 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. --Moonriddengirl 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User box help

Hi i am just wondering where i can find a userbox for being catholic (if one exists)--AFUSCO 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of userboxes that say this (with some going into more detail as to what kind of Catholic you are), so take your pick!

• {{User:UBX/Catholic}}
• {{User:Eternal dragon/Userboxes/Catholic}}
• {{User:Djr xi/User Catholic}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Catholic liberal}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Catholic}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Catholic 2}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Catholic 3}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Catholic 4}}
• {{User:UBX/rc}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/West to East}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Lapsed Catholic}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Ind Catholic}}
• {{User:UBX/Ind Catholic}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Old Catholic}}
• {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Catholic Evangelical}}
• {{User:Neranei/userboxes/Catholic movement}}

Tra (Talk) 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help--AFUSCO 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)