User talk:Eyu100

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Eyu100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

and just curious, why did you change "over" to "under" & back again? are the usages interchangeable? Michael Ward 19:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A question why did you change Rome to Roma(city)? Falphin 23:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] New Idea for 0.5 Version Nominations reviewing

Hey, I made a layout for my idea of reviewing at User:Chcknwnm/Sandbox. If you think it's appropriate it should probably go to Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Reviews. Anyway, let me know what you think, and feel free to say that it will cause too much extra work or isn't appropriate for this project...just looking for feedback. I'll send this message to all the current reviewers to get their imput. Later, Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please help on Ancient Egypt

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Ancient Egypt was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau 18:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

[edit] I was reverting vandalism.

[1] misclicked? I've since reverted, «ct» (t|e) 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was using a tool, so I didn't check if someone had already reverted it. I reverted my edit back. (Eyu100, unknown date)

[edit] Wikisort

Hi, thanks for posting your suggestion. I'm sorry, but my technical skills are very limited, so I can't really follow what your proposal involves in technical terms! I think, though, that the goal of Wikisort was to produce ratings by users, and the new WikiProject assessment scheme is meeting that need for ratings through the bot system. In fact the WikiProject scheme is probably better, because the assessments are done by subject experts who are members of the community and familiar with the assessment scheme. The user rating scheme was better than nothing-at-all, but it has flaws - it is vulnerable to passing readers giving superficial ratings, unless a complex algorithm is used to weight the scheme towards trusted users. In particular, an article like George W. Bush might be excellent in content, but receive low ratings from users on the basis of "I don't like George Bush". So I think the current scheme is better - unless your scheme offers a big improvement on it! Walkerma 03:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Of the four subprojects of the Editorial Team, WikiSort is the only project that is scalable. A subset of editors manually validating articles will quickly reach a state where the rate of new material rapidly outpaces the rate of validation. However, by utilizing the same wiki principles that have allowed our beloved encyclopedia to grow, WikiSort will be able to succeed. Equally important to scalability is the fact that more editors will undoubtedly select articles from a greater range of subjects than a subset of editors. That is, selection bias decreases as the number of editors increases." That basically says it. Wikisort is more scalable than hand-selecting each article. Work via Wikiprojects works very well, but there is a lot of content that does not belong to any Wikiproject. WVWP has more than 200,000 articles, but that is only a small fraction of Wikipedia (the > 1,000,000 articles excludes stubs). Articles like George Bush that are well-known enough to cause selection bias would be included anyway if we still hand-selected some articles. Articles like uranium would most likely get rated by content only. Biographies of people who are not extremely well-known will only have a few people rating too low or too high. Technically, you add a script to your monobook.js that rates articles, and the bot processes these ratings every so often. Eyu100 04:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I posted here because I had noticed that you'd posted in several places, and you'd be getting replies here, but you are welcome to copy things over to my talk page. If you prefer to discuss it in project space, it would be better to move it to Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wiki_Sort#Software_suggestion. I'm afraid I have no clue what my monobook.js is (can anyone really be that ignorant? Afraid I am!), though I know (think?) js means javascript. Sorry!
That quote from Wikisort was written at a time when we only had a few hundred articles assessed, and no one predicted how things would turn out. The reality today is better than our wildest dreams - just last night alone 6000 new assessments were done!. That proves that the WikiProject approach is scalable. Yes, we "only" have 200,000 articles but over 150,000 of those were tagged just in August! Meanwhile the number of WikiProjects is exploding, so I would guess that by this time next year we will have over 90% of Wikipedia subject areas covered, though article coverage will be lower because of stubs. Walkerma 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I should make it clear that I'm not opposed to your proposal! Rather, I want you to convince me that it's needed, or that it is at least a major advance on what has gone before (and explain to me in words of one syllable how it works!). If you succeed, you will find me a tireless supporter! Another thing, we need to find out why the Wikisort project was sort-of-shelved. I'm not sure exactly why, but I think choices were made at the Foundation level that rendered it very tricky to implement. If I had to guess (don't quote me!) I'd say it had to do with how you deal with the copyright aspect of someone who contributes a rating. The GNU system, as I understand it, stupidly requires all contributors (however minor) to be listed; I may be wrong, but that sounds plausible to me. Thanks, I for one appreciate the thought you've put into this. Walkerma 06:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
On the talk page, the project leader said that he didn't have enough time, not a lot of people knew about it, and the software wasn't done. This is a way to solve the problem with software, because I think the project leader was asking the developers to write the software. This way, the developers don't have to change Mediawiki. The discussion was also fragmented between different pages. The only problem with Wikisort is rating biographies too low or too high, but any biography that is notable enough to have that problem will probably be passed anyway. If a lot of people knew about this and the software was there, articles would be rated very fast (much faster than the current V0.5, because it is extremely easy to just type in a rating). Basically, the major advantage of this is speed. Technical details: the user has a script run each time they view a page. There is a tab called "rate" on the page. It is a numerical rating system. Ratinggs will be posted on User:Eyu100/Bot_area. The ratings will be processed by the bot in some way to get the final rating. Eyu100 06:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Now I get it! Thats seems sensible. At this Wikimania talk, one of the speakers from the Netherlands demonstrated something similar - they have some educational games and they have people rate how much they liked/disliked the game with a simple box that appears on the page. He explained that it does the same as the edit tab, but non-wiki people feel much more comfortable with a little box on the page. Do you envisage something like that? Meanwhile, I think the problem with Wikisort runs deeper that the leader's time - the code work was being done by the Wikimedia software people, we were told it was about ready to go (late 2005), then suddenly it got postponed. You're right about poor communication, a lot of discussion took place on meta and bypassed us. Take a look here, and then maybe talk with Magnus Manske - since he wrote Mediawiki he WILL understand the technical side! Walkerma 06:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... the script is the #1, and the bot is the #2. The script is already done, but people can just unput -12112341, so I need to fix that. Also, it is completely untested. The bot is #2. I really don't know how to write a bot, so maybe somebody else could do that. After both of these are done, we would need a way of haing as many people as possible rate articles, but it would be easier than getting editorial team members because clicking on "rate" is easier than contacting Wikiprojects, reviewing articles, etc. I'll try to find someone who can write the bot. Eyu100 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am having problems getting the script to work. Do you know anyone who could help? Here's the script (it doesn't run):

function gotoURL(myURL){

  window.location=myURL

}

function write_to_ratings_page() {

gotoURL("http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eyu100/Bot_area&action=edit");
document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value + "(" + quality + " and " + importance + " and " + pagename + ")";
document.editform.wpSummary.value = "Added rating";
document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = true;
document.editform.submit();

}

function get_rating() { var quality=prompt("Please enter a quality rating from 1 to 6, 1 is stub, 6 is FA","") var importance=prompt("Please enter an importance rating from 1 to 4, 1 is low, 4 is top","") }

function rate() {

  get_rating();
  gotoURL("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eyu100/Bot_area");
  write_to_ratings_page();

}

addOnloadHook(

function() { 
  var pagename=getPname();
  addTab("javascript:rate()", "rate", "ca-rate", "Rate this page", "");
  window.location="www.google.com";

);

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eyu100/monobook.js"

[edit] Remaining work on Version 0.5

Hi Eyu, thanks for your help on Version 0.5. I wondered if you could take a look at my recent post and give me some feedback? If you have time, some comments on the rivers and the Lakes and Seas set noms. Thanks! Walkerma 05:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to look over the last handful of Computing FAs at Wikipedia:Version_0.5_FA_Review? I'm hoping we can tie up the loose ends on that section by Thursday - is that possible? Thanks! Walkerma 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't connect to the Internet (except occasionally for a few minutes). I don't know when I will be able to connect to the Internet again. The bot is partially ready. Eyu100 03:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Good news about the bot! Walkerma 04:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
When you get a good connection again, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Version_0.5/To_do and sign up for something? Only four weeks then we can take a rest from this! Thanks, Walkerma 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's been a lot longer than four weeks, as we've been largely been on our own, but I think we're just about finished. Are you OK with my proposal to end reviewing on Saturday? I think that now we have someone to produce the CD we should get on and do this. We can review more stuff for the next version. Cheers, Walkerma 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User rating

I think this might be the first user rating picked up by the bot! Take a look! Walkerma 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisort

Hi, sounds like you have done some very good work! Can you find some way to test it? Can we test it on some user subpages? I have a few sandbox pages you can "rate". Once you can test it, maybe you can contact User talk:The1physicist and perhaps User_talk:Magnus_Manske, as well as posting at WikiSort. Cheers, Walkerma 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The script does not work. Also, I had problems copying the source code, and I can't run the program. I might be able to have someone else run the bot, though. Eyu100 04:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC meeting

Hi, can you confirm here whether or not you can make the IRC meeting you arranged for tomorrow? I will do my best, I can definitely be there for part of the time. It's a good idea to have a meeting, I think, and my experience with these meetings is that lots of people will show up who didn't sign up - so don't despair. If you definitely can NOT make it we could postpone it. If you CAN make it, I'll email SJ and Maurreen to make sure they are aware of it, SJ told me he would like another IRC chat about now so he'll no doubt attend if he can. Also, I sent an email to you a few days ago, can you take a look? Thanks, Walkerma 19:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a little late, but no, I couldn't attend. Eyu100

[edit] D programming language (advertisment)

You recently added the 'advert' template to this topic, but I can't see where you detailed the specific points in the article that prompted you to add this template. I'd like to clean up the article so can you please help me by pointing out the 'offending' text in the article to me. DerekP 01:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the talk page about this , possibly some time ago. If you can't find it or the statements seem wrong, remove it. Eyu100 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:B-class.png

Thanks for uploading Image:B-class.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] letter 'B'

your letter B is really really big over at Wikipedia:Version_0.5. like, holy shit big. i tried to fix it a bit, but i gotta head out the door. sorry. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images in grading template

Hi, Eyu100. Another editor expressed a dislike of the images you added to the grading templates, so I've removed them again. Please discuss the matter at Template talk:Grading scheme and do not add the images again unless consensus has been reached. Thanks, Pagrashtak 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New MCotW

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Stress (medicine) was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurse work 06:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot!

Thank you so much for ploughing through all of those leftover nominations, I (and I'm sure others) really appreciate your work in helping us achieve "closure" on this list. I'm trying to get through the global cities, the biographies, the core topics and the remaining FA sections (I'm cherrypicking from the last). This helps a great deal towards getting the list finished. Thanks! Walkerma 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Gold Rush

You might want to take a look at California Gold Rush for that Wikipedia 0.5 project - it looks pretty good! EmperorNorton 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
Wizzy presents Eyu100 with this barnstar for all your work towards the Wikipedia CD edition

[edit] Reviews

Hi! Just a question: how do you review the FA articles? Just pick a topic, and then review the articles, and put the right ones into the V0.5 list? So do you review and include articles alone? Because if so, I'd help with other topics... NCurse work 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what you do. There don't seem to be many people editing that page, so I think I'm alone... Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Eyu! I've been leaving you to work on the page alone, but I keep a close eye on what's going on there (I reverted some vandalism on a new V0.5 FA just a few minutes ago). It's simply that I'm trying to finish off other things like the biographies and core topics - the end is definitely in sight now for both of these. Things can get pretty busy for me at the moment, so my reviews may be sporadic. If you need help with anything on the FA reviews, let me know, but I'm hoping that you and NCurse can finish off that page between you. To save time on writing importance reviews, you could consider just giving a big list of articles you want to leave out, and I'd be happy to glance over that and leave my comments. Thanks for all your hard work! Walkerma 06:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Great idea! Just review the other FAs, include them if everything seems to be perfect, but create a subpage for those failed on importance. NCurse work 14:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Coffee was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

– ClockworkSoul 04:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC meeting?

Hi Eyu, do you think we should have an IRC meeting on offline releases next weekend? If so, when would you be able to attend/not attend? Walkerma 05:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should, as there has not been one for a while. I don't know when I can attend, but I can probably attend at 3:00 PST Saturday. I should know by tomorrow. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martinbot

Hi Eyu, Martinp23 has got a test version of a bot running with your multiplication scale, and it has generated this list out of the chemistry articles. You can see the original proposal here, and further discussions here and on my talk page. What do you think - do you like this? Do you have any ideas/suggestions? Is this ready to talk about at the main WP:1.0 page? Should we bring it up on IRC on Saturday? I've not advertised it so far as I wanted to just be able to get something working before Martin got deluged with 15 people's opinions! Thanks, Walkerma 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. We should talk about it at the IRC meeting. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It's using your multiplication algorithm. From my memories of computer science (on punch cards, which really dates me - but the principle still applies!), having the computer add two numbers uses a lot less of its time than having it multiply two numbers (imagine doing the equivalent on an abacus!) We don't usually worry about such things these days because chip speed has made this unimportant, but if this algorithm is to be run regularly (maybe even daily?) on perhaps a million articles it may matter more. I have played with algorithms in chemistry and often you can get equivalent results by either method (x or +), as long as you set up the definitions right. I've been pretty busy with work, so I haven't had a chance to sit down and work out an additive algorithm. As for tonight, I want to push on and review a few more articles! Talk to you on Saturday! Walkerma 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I chose multiplication instead of addition because if an article is an FA but has absolutely no importance whatsoever (0 importance), adding the quality and importance will not give zero, which is actually the article's value to Wikipedia 1.0. Similarly, if an article were very important (like Paper), but was empty, it would be of no value to Wikipedia 1.0. Also, I don't think using multiplication will seriously slow down the bot becuase the bot can only retrieve one page each second. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC topic

Hi Eyu, I see that you added "A complete list for Work Via Wikiprojects, not separated by wikiproject" to the agenda for this today's meeting - can you tell me exactly what you had in mind? I'd like to be clear when we hold the meeting. Also, for the meeting, do you want to chair the meeting or shall I? Talk to you soon, Walkerma 21:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You can chair the meeting, but you should give Titoxd, NCurse, Kirill Lokshin, and me operator privileges. The list would make it easier to select articles above a certain threshold. IT would be like the existing wikiproject lists, except it would be named "All" and have all the articles in it, but it would only be used to select articles for Version 1.0. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The list sounds like an excellent idea! Meanwhile, I have no idea what operator privileges are on IRC, I'm rather technically challenged with this sort of thing I'm afraid. Still, I know how to type "Shut up" (or a more polite equivalent) into a text box! I'll "talk" to you soon, cheers, Walkerma 21:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WVWP and other issues

Thanks for the info on the template. Actually, we've already been using a boilerplate text for this - see this. We tailor it, depending on (a) Whether the project has been contacted yet, (b) How specialized the project is and (c) Whether it is Arts, Religion, or whatever. I like to pick relevant examples of use of the bot - for example, I used Catholicism when contacting Religion projects. I choose a standard text for a set of projects and then contact the whole lot at once. The main focus of this second round of contacts is to ask for key articles. I stopped contacting projects in September, to focus on completing reviews for Version 0.5. Be aware that much of the work is not making contact, but rather following up on those contacts. If you contact 50 projects, and you get 20 replies, most of those 20 will require some serious time copying article information into our tables, helping to explain stuff, etc. So I only do a run of postings when I know I will have lots of time in the week to follow! I plan to make several runs after Christmas, since I will have some time then (too busy to do more than 1 or 2 before then). If you want to get going before then, that's even better! Ncurse has offered to help contact Science projects, and Badbilltucker may well help as well. User:Shanel and Tito did a lot of the first round contacts, they may pitch in as well once we get started.

Please contact me via email, if you're OK with that, and we can coordinate things further. I prefer to discuss things like the proposed publisher (yes!), legal issues, etc. in a less public place. I can also send you a copy of the IRC discussion (I think it was probably ending when I left. If you prefer not to contact via email, I understand that too. I didn't raise the WVWP issue any further on IRC, since I wanted you to explain what you had in mind. It was also 1:45am in Europe, and 2:45am in South Africa, and I thought people would want to finish! Though it sounds like the Poles were still hard at work getting their DVD put together! Walkerma 02:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JS reviewer

Hello Eyu100, I just edited your monobook.js to replace the coding from the PR script with {{js}}. This allows for me to keep track of who is using the PR script and to let you use the most recently updated revision of the script (well, at least since the last WP:BYC). Thanks, AZ t 02:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 0.5

Hi eyu100! Well, the reviewing is finally done! We need to compare our category listings with the V0.5 page listing, I'd guess we'll see a few discrepancies. I will add in the pages I tagged last night. I added a couple of B-Class major topical articles like Iraq War, when we started the project we agreed that we should add these at the last minute. I feel like we have a fairly good coverage now. How do you want to do this - should you start at A (or $?) and I'll start at Z, and we'll meet in the middle? Then we can update Wikipedia:Version 0.5/biglist. I should be able to spend some time on this on Monday night. What do you think? By the way, you might want to take a listen to Episode 5 of Wikipedia Weekly, I recorded this early this morning. Walkerma 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The biglist is supposed to be the final list of articles. It is easiest to generate it from the Version 0.5 front page, but if there are only a few articles, you can add them manually. I'll start on the checking and post new things to the todo list. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 02:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've got a "differences" list generated by AWB, by comparison with /biglist2 (generated from the listing page). Most are typos or different versions of the same article, but a few such as Oslo actually didn't get the template put on. I'm updating biglist now. Can I ask why you're editing the template? I'm getting double vision! Walkerma 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Version 0.5 is almost done except for publishing, so I created release version templates and put them in the Version 0.5 template (because whatever is in Version 0.5 is in the release version). Could you show me the differences list? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's here. Also see Tito's posting on the main 1.0 talk page. I'm off to bed very soon. Walkerma 05:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Hi eyu100, can you update the criteria page? Someone has tagged it for an update for Version 0.7. Thanks, Walkerma 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

criteria page. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Jerry Klein Islamophobia experiment be deleted?

As you have contributed to the Islamophobia article, please consider visiting Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Parody where Jerry Klein acted as if he was for forcing American-Muslims to wear special identification marks, similar to the Jews in Nazi Germany. This was to gauge his audience’s reaction and he was shocked by the calls he received. It is currently being debated if the page should be deleted. Please read the article and vote at [2]. Thank You.Wowaconia 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

Hi eyu100 - I admit it, I was the one who removed it from WP:WPRV. I wasn't sure how to put both shortcuts in at the time. I went to restore it tonight, and found you'd done it - thanks and sorry! I hope all is well with you - will send you info on the beta test of V0.5 tomorrow. Walkerma 06:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely do more bot testing, but unfortunately this can only be done at (the other) Martin's convenience. I had thought we would have done several more tests by now! I've made a request on his talk page to do another test run. I don't think we should ditch the ranking system - several people with whom I've spoken about it have said it is a very good idea (btw, I didn't think of the idea, so I can say that!). I'd like to see Martin just fix the bug in the bot code - I believe this was caused by a simple mistake on his part (I think he even said, in effect, "Oops" at one point!). Also, we can get rid of the "banding" altogether if we switch to option B, that should make the coding for importance simpler (and eliminate the part where the bug is). Having said that, I think we should include the importance rankings produced by the WikiProjects whenever possible, and that will mean coming up with rankings for each project. IMHO, we should wait to see whether option A or option B is working best before we assign actual numbers to projects. Walkerma 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It turns out that Martin's line went down, so he's at the mercy of British Telecom, at least for another week or so! Sounds like we'll just have to be patient. He wants to try out the manual importance rankings next, and work on the linkranking scheme later, so we should think about how best to do the numbers. Did you just want to give all the projects the same rank to begin with, then begin to adjust after the first run, or do you want to adjust the project rank first? Cheers, Walkerma 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to first give every project the same importance, then rate them ourselves, then have other projects rate them (for the final trial). Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Shallow water blackout vandalism Eyu100, I am having considerable trouble with vandalism from Catherine Woods on the articles shallow water blackout and its associated image SWB2. I am currently working as an advisor in Dili, Timor Leste under somewhat trying circumstances and I just don't have the reliable access to internet or bandwidth to cope with what appears to be an emerging editing war. For example I would not be able to reupload a deleted image until I get back to Australia. I am also uncertain how to deal with a concerted vandalism attack. I would be very grateful if you were able to advise or assist. I am online, sort of, every 48 hours or so. Also emerging trouble with drowning and deep water blackout Ex nihil 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Suggestion

Thank you for the suggestion. I have no idea how to go about un-deleting an article, however. Would you have a suggestion on how to begin? Thanks again. (Cardsplayer4life 11:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Go to WP:DRV. (Try not to point fingers, it'll make people less likely to want to undelete it.) Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/y/u/User_talk%7EEyu100_dfd1.html"