Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Assistance • 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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance).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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] google books links

Is there some policy on including links to google books in citations (like Bals des victimes does, for instance)? I think I read somewhere that this was forbidden for some reason.P4k 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Seeing as they provide free book content that helps verify its contents, I see no problem with it, but whether Google is allowed to do it in the first place is a point of contention. At least one of those books mentioned in this particular article is in the public domain, so that shouldn't be a problem regardless of possible copyright issues. - Mgm|(talk) 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finding deleted articles

Hello! Is there any way i can recover a deleted Wikipedia article?

Thanks

please email at xxx@Hotmail.com if you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.64.30 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles for further instructions. I have removed your email address and Wikipedia content is mirrored in many sites, making your address *very* public. - BanyanTree 10:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Which one would be more notable? A 1.2km high mountain or an organization on the other side of the planet? How about an ethnicity? -- Cat chi? 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's in the eyes of the beholder, Cat. A 1.2km (4000ish feet) mountain in the middle of Utah might not be worth writing home about, while Mount Vesuvius is about the same height and is quite notable. Someone standing at the base of that volcano might not think the NAACP is very notable but they are indeed quite notable in the US (and thus in Utah). What are you trying to prove? Ethnicity is usually a notable subject.--Eplack 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help on figuring out the extent of OR

I'm currently in a discussion with a user to figure out what parts of an article constitute as OR, and what doesn't. If I'm posting this in the wrong place, please let me know and I'll move it. Questions we have:

  1. If you have a report ranking different companies from a site like Consumer Reports and the Wiki article makes a claim such as "(company) has the lowest ranked scores in categories X, Y, and Z", is that OR?
  2. Does cherry picking parts of a report to make a point count as OR?
  3. If a report lists the number of complaints for a number of companies and the Wiki article says "Company X has the most complaints" and cites the report, is that OR?

Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If done exactly as written here, then I would tend to say that no, none of those are examples of original research. They are examples of ways of summarizing a source and all three seem like common practices that might be used in an article. Now, if the author used the report as a source, but then added their own opinion or they tried to incorporate additional material from another source to create a different view from either source, that would be original research. I took a peek at your contribs and saw the issue at hand (boy what a mess). From what I read and from looking at the article, the main issue is not so much one of original research but a lack of a neutral point of view (which option 2 can result in a violation of, depending on how it is done) and a complete lack of balance in the article. Collectonian 06:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm, alright. Yeah, that article is a mess. I gave a third opinion, and look what I walked into... but then again, stuff like this helps people understand Wiki principles better. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If in 2, you cherry pick to make a point that wasn't made in the report, I'd consider it OR or perhaps even a violation of WP:POINT. - Mgm|(talk) 13:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
See, that's what I thought. I guess I'm just not sure of where the line between summarizing ends, and where OR begins. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I am one of the contributors of the Farmers web site. I am just summarizing the Dept of Insurance complaint reports as done in this article Farmers Most Complaints in WA State. Note that in the article they don't go add rations and what have you, they cite the number of complaints only. Obviously I would not consider this OR. Router 15:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verfiability

Do we have a page somewhere to request help from fellow editors to find sources for statements in an article? I can't find anything on Cat Fletcher, Carmelo Torres, and Miriam Fletcher... the main author, User:Cartof, appears to think all is fine.[1] He also claims to be Cat Fletcher himself.[2] I'm ready to believe him, but the problem is that I cannot find any independent confirmation for these three articles. But then, I'm not particularly well-versed in Venezuelan culture... Could anyone help, please? Lupo 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (Also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela; further discussion at the talk pages of these articles, please. Oh, and if we do have such a request page (other than this one), please tell me on my talk page.)

[edit] Anonymous user blanking talk page

An anonymous user is blanking their talk page to remove evidence of prior edit-warring, etc. See User talk:24.247.215.55. I have reverted it several times but the user continually claims they have the right to do so (even though WP:talk says otherwise). --Rehcsif 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:TALK, it says: "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded as uncivil." And it does not specifically rule out anons. Adrian M. H. 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In practice, an IP subject to repeated warnings are not granted the same leeway as an account that has built a reputation making good edits. There are established anon users on stable IPs, but these users tend to adopt courtesies such as discussion archiving on their own accord, not to mention not doing things that result in large numbers of warnings. - BanyanTree 07:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure about this? As far as I'm aware there is no exception and if a user removes content from their talk page, you should not revert. I know last time I asked this was the case and I was even informed that by getting into a revert war with an anon of their talk page, I may be blocked for disruption. For more info check out Wikipedia:Vandalism#Discussion page vandalism which specifically mentions it's not prohibited and also links to the FAQ which mentions the cases where it's come up and in all cases it was decided that removing warnings is not prohibited even if discouraged. Nil Einne 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is the argument that it is technically "not" their page because an IP can be bound to many people if it is dynamic. I believe I've seen this happen on arguments between IPs and Administrators, usually ending in a flurry of unblock templates and a protected talk page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I've noticed the policy discouraging trivia, but what about definitions and terminology? I was reading the article on Geocoins and found the terminology section to be fairly dry and wanted to improve it. What is the policy regarding this? --Eplack 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that section is pretty dry. Certainly terms like HTF and VHTF don't need to be on there. It seems like a section on coin production could be pieced together, but the rest seems a bit excessive. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think I will just remove the section and recommend that this kind of content belongs outside the realm of Wikipedia, such as on a personal webpage. It could be added to the links at the bottom of the page then. --Eplack 07:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help us spread knowledge worldwide. Donate to Wikipedia!

How can I put this message on the catalan Wikipedia? Pérez 07:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be information here but I can't find it. Perhaps the English Wikipedia is only a test? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sugarcane - why was its article deleted?

It's gone! sugarcane - even its botanical name saccharum (which was a redirect to the former). Can someone restore it? Thanks. Peter1968 10:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki edit

I've just received the following request: "can you please change the content in MediaWiki:Sharedupload/no to the following: {{subst:User:H92/Commons}}, and when you’re done, delete User:H92/Commons". It's easy to do, and I would've been done by now. However I'm not familiar with the MediaWiki pages, so I thought I should err on the side of caution and ask here first. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Patrick 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I meant to do it myself, I just wanted to make sure it was OK. But thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images with logo embedded

I can't seem to find where to point out two images have a company logo (three flags) in them. Image:Image733.jpg Image:Image1214.JPG (SEWilco 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Copyright_problems lists the process, in the instructions section, for tagging the images as possible copyright violations if you think the person has uploaded them under a false claim of ownership. Collectonian 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I think the user represents the company so I'm not questioning the license or copyright. I saw mention someplace about marks in images, but no mention of how to report them. (SEWilco 15:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Reporting Harrasment and Trolling

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this but a member - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ioeth#Listen_here_sonny - has been harrasing me. User:Ioeth continues to talk to me in template form and assumes bad faith about me as well as being incivil towards me. He refuses to talk our grievances through. MagicMons 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When investigating this matter, please be sure to review contributions of both users. Thanks! --Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like MagicMons has been removing the afd template and blanking out portions of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conference Theory, in violation of Wikipedia policy, and has not reacted helpfully to being corrected by Ioeth. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You ought to check the definition of trolling; using standard warning templates to deal with unacceptable editing behaviour such as removing discussion comments is neither trolling nor uncivil. Have a look at WP:WARN for more info. Incidentally, AFD discussions are not votes. Adrian M. H. 14:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding capitalization

Would a person live in the Jewish Quarter of Kiev or the Jewish quarter of Kiev?

If the correct form is the former, without mentioning Kiev would he still live in the Jewish Quarter or would he live in the Jewish quarter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.8.2 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mindless Merging?

Coming across a particular page, I seem to have encountered a person who is on something of a crusade to merge as many individual tv episode articles into less informative summaries on episode list pages. I see more than a few objections to what he is doing on his talk page as well. While I'm all for improving wikipedia, that really doesn't seem to be his goal.....--Carterhawk 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Always assume good faith; this may be a thoroughly-thought-out quest. It could be that this unnamed editor feels that we are getting into an absurd situation, where every episode of every American television show made since circa 1990 is getting its own article; and is on a noble quest to cure this sad mess. --Orange Mike 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This may be an outcome of an AfD, or the possibly result of a comparable discussion on a WikiProject. Consolidating pages in this manner can apparently make them more notable, and hence more resistant to deletion attempts. It's unfortunate, but that can be one of the end results of rampant deletionism. =) — RJH (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over-imaging of an article??

I recently saw an editor remove a great number of Wiki links from an article and his stated reason was "over-linking". I totally agree with what he did because someone had linked almost every word in the article.

Taking a cue from the above, is there such a thing as over-imaging an article (meaning adding too many photographs)?? Achim has added 5 photographs to the Piping article which had only one photo before his additions ... and I might add that, in my opinion, some of the five are quite poor.

The article now has 6 photos, which I think is too darn many. It is not vandalism ... but it is over-imaging. Can anything be done about this? I have looked at Achim's Talk page and it looks as if it would be quite difficult to try reasoning with him. Please help. - mbeychok 03:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there such a think as over-imaging? Without a doubt! I recently cleaned up the meerkat article which had TEN different pictures! The pictures were longer than the article almost. In the case of that article, I'd also agree and say that it seems like an excessive number of pictures for the article. It doesn't really seem like they all add to the article or are relevant to the sections they are in. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images goes into appropriate image use and has a few suggestions for dealing with excessive images. Maybe point the editor there and hack away? Collectonian 04:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This is particularly bad for articles like cat, where everyone seems to feel that a picture of their cat is encyclopedic, but can happen in nearly any article where people are spoiled for image choice. I figure galleries should be deprecated as being warehouses for multiple similar images with uninformative captions and {{Commons}} used in nearly all cases. The one exception I make for image glut is for stubs of locations, where there may be a both a map and a photo of the place that go longer than the text. I figure that this is acceptable, if not ideal. - BanyanTree 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It can happen (it is accepted it happened with cat) however I would generally only worry in the context of longer articles. In the case of stubs it is likely that when extended they will have enough space for the images (even if this does result in articles written to be just long enough to fit all the images in.Genisock2 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I archive a talk page?

I want to archive everything before "Same ol', same ol'" at Talk:Analytic Hierarchy Process, but I don't know how to do it. Can somebody explain? Best would be if somebody could actually do it, and let me/us see what is done, with maybe some explanation here. DCLawyer 11:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Learning by doing is always more effective, so here is a link to WP:ARCHIVE. It is very straightforward. Adrian M. H. 14:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism question

84.203.61.133 is roaming around Wikipedia committing vandalism as we speak, and I'm chasing him around undoing what he's doing. Maybe this isn't the best response, but I'm not savvy enough about Wikipedia methods to know what else to do. When I do to the place it says to go to report vandalism, it says that the vandals must have been warned. So I can't use that. So please tell me what I should do. For now, I guess I'll go back to undoing his work??? Thanks, Saraalan 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with him and undoing his "work!" I've reported him for you. In the future, you go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for reporting active, persistent vandals. :) Collectonian 00:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Once he was stopped, I went to Wikipedia:Vandalism and read about warnings. And I looked at the warnings others were giving him while I was chasing him around. Thanks again, Saraalan 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page returned

My user page User:Mattisse was deleted (or whatever the word is ) through a misunderstanding. I need my user page, as without it I am helpless. All my article beginnings, important links, collections of references and such were there.

Pleae, could I reqeuest that the page be restored. Otherwise, I am at sea with all of my work lost.

Thank you, Mattisse 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What was the nature of the misunderstanding? The email from you on User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson pretty clearly requests the deletion of all of your pages. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cibao Intl Airport Infraestructure

Anyone want to take a hack at Cibao Intl Airport Infraestructure? The person who wrote the article's native language isn't English, and it clearly shows. The article is unsourced and needs major clean up. The clean up is too overwhelming for me, so I am here asking for volunteers to check it out. Seeing as there are not any other articles about the infrastructure of other airports, the topic of this article seems too narrow, and it may be a good candidate for merger or deletion. But before I do anything too rash, I wanted to get some other opinions and see if anyone thought it was worth attempting to clean up the article. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say good candidate for deletion or maybe a merge. Some of it is already covered in Cibao International Airport, so now idea why the editor who wrote it decided to fork off this article. Collectonian 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you repeat this request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Contributers with an interest in airports are more likely to see your request. MilborneOne 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion.-Andrew c [talk] 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting RFCs - choosing topic area

When requesting an RFC, is the "topic area" defined by the nature of the article concerned or the nature of the RFC? For example, if requesting an RFC concerning SYN, OR and POV relating to articles about medical schools, is it best to use RFCsci (medicine as a science), RFCecon (schools fall within "companies, organisations and institutions"), or RFCpolicy (SYN, OR and POV are policy issues)? Asking here as this is where WP:RFC directs for guidance on picking topic areas. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a simple question - no-one want to offer an answer? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Starting with the last point, policy RfCs are supposed to be about policy only (e.g., changing text), not policy as applied to a single article. As for whether you go with medicine or organizations, that really depends on what the disagreement is about - whether medical schools are teaching incorrect theories (that would be science) or (more likely) something like whether they are too expensive, have wrong admittance criteria, etc. (that would be organizations). In short, when an article can fall into one of several categories, just use your best judgment as to what kind of editors are likely to visit the RfC page where the article will be listed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I must be crazy, but...

This will probably sound crazy, but I thought I might ask anyway, so here goes. Did the tab that says discussion always say discussion or did it at some point say talk? Just yesterday I was editing and I was about to click the link to the talk page when I noticed it said discussion. I could have sworn it used to say talk, but who knows, maybe I just never read it before. It has really been bugging me so I would really love to know. Thanks.--Kyle(talk) 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that it has been a discussion tab for as long as I have been here (a year). I can't say either way prior to that. Adrian M. H. 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It has always said 'discussion' since May 2004, apart from a few brief periods where it has been changed to other words and quickly reverted. See MediaWiki:Talk. Tra (Talk) 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I was crazy! Oh well.--Kyle(talk) 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It originally said "Discuss this page". With the latest software, the wording is stored in MediaWiki:Talk. You can see that it has been changed a few times, but Wikipedians hate change, and revert it on sight.  ;-) — Omegatron 03:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Gazette references

About a month and a half ago the London Gazette changed its website (http://gazettes-online.co.uk) (this change also affects the Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette) meaning that all references to it that actually linked direct to a pdf copy of the relevant gazette on the website (created prior to this change) are now broken. Links to search results pages are similarly broken. An example of an old style link is as follows:

The most important parameters in this are:

    • webType - which indicates whether it is a London (0), Edinburgh (1), or Belfast (2) Gazette which is being referred to and
    • issueNumber which surprisingly enough refers to the number of the Gazzete issue

The equivalent "new" url (in its minimal form) would be:

where:

    • pdf is equivalent to the old issueNumber and
    • geoType is equivalent to the old webType, but now takes a text input

The main problem is that we lose the specific page being referred to, this is becuase the new url scheme uses the absolute page number, this numberings starts at 1 for the first page of the first issue each gazette of a new year. The old scheme simply numbers each page within an issue (starting with 0). Appending &page=<old page number> to the new url doesn't seem to break anything, but doesn't take you to the right page either - it would however preserve this information for our readers.

The nature of this conversion naturally suggests a bot process, assuming we can easily identify the pagess containing broken links. I've tried using special:linksearch to identify pages linking tothe Gazette website, but this seems to be returning only a fraction of the actual pages, try searching Wikipedia for either "London Gazette" or "gazettes-online" to see what I mean.

Also, User:DavidCane has created {{LondonGazette}}, if references to the Gazettes consistently used this, ongoing maintenance should be easier, since any future changes to the urls could probably be fixed simply by a template change, and it would in any case be easier to identify affected pages by checking transclusions of the template. However, at the moment this also requires the date the Gazette was issued and the (absolute) page number of the first page being referred to, which are generally not easy to identify. If these were not mandatory, a bot could also be sued to turn the broken urls into templated references. If such a bot logged its changes, then this data could be manually inserted at our leisure by working through the logs.

It would also be necessary to update references which link to search results pages e.g.

maps to

It seems the search engine has also been updated, so different results are returned, so it is not worth trying to preserve the parameter indicating which results page we were on. Anyoje any thoughts on how best to proceed? David Underdown 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If indeed this is suitable for a bot, the place to ask would be Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make system messages

Resolved.
MediaWiki:Main page/ko 대문
MediaWiki:Contents/ko 문서목록
MediaWiki:Featured content/ko 특집문서목록
MediaWiki:interaction/ko 의견교환
MediaWiki:About Wikipedia/ko 위키피디아 소개
MediaWiki:contact/ko 위키피디아 접촉

These need admin access. -- WonYongTalk 04:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just had a conversation with this user on IRC, where he came looking for assistance. The user is using the Korean language preferences to work with English wikipedia, but says that the above phrases are still in english. The Korean he has included here should be the correct terms, but it needs an admin to correct (possibly higher? I don't know how close to root that might be). If someone fluent in English and Korean can check them, that would be ideal.--Thespian 09:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Category:Wikipedia multilingual coordination is relevant. (SEWilco 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
I'll keep that in mind; the user's English wasn't good (though as I said to him, certainly better than my Korean), so I mostly posted because he came to IRC looking for an admin, one wasn't available, and it took a little to help him figure out what he was asking. When I did, he seemed so relieved that someone figured it out that I told him I'd just post that here so that if an admin saw it they'd have an idea why he was asking. ST47 has taken care of it. --Thespian 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikijacking

Where can I complain if somebody has wikijacked my ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.129 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that we have a policy here at Wikipedia that forbids original ideas, writing, or research, you should have nothing to worry about. If you do find violations of the policy in any Wikipedia article, feel free to delete it (please cite [[WP:NOR]] in your edit summary). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help with reporting typo on Wikipedia logo

Hey, Wikipedians, don't know where else to go with this. I have received an oral request to pass on to somebody who can edit the Wikipedia logo graphic, by Dr Peter Friedlander. The message is something like (because i don't have the vocabulary to understand exactly what Dr Friedlander was trying to tell me) on the Wikipedia logo, the tile with the Sanskrit/Hindi version of "ve"/"w" is not possible in that format, those two characters are valid, but they don't go together to make a valid "W". I think it is the tile at 9 o'clock, i.e. left hand side David Woodward 10:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, while the problem is known, the solution isn't obvious. See Wikipedia:Miscellaneous FAQ#Can you tell me anything about the Wikipedia logo?. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Non-standard discography infoboxes

Hi there, I just finished the first draft of the article Rick Cua and after using the template:discography list and saving the page, the article is automatically categorized under Category:Non-standard discography inboxes. I don't see where I made any changes that would make the inboxes "non-standard." Would someone mind telling me where I might've made a mistake so I can correct it? Thanks! --Wordy1 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry dont know the answer but I just changed your text to stop this page joining the cat you mentioned (add a colon before the cat name). MilborneOne 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing by last name

In creating categories for music artists, like Rick Cua, I'm noticing that on the pages under which I have categorized this article, he appears under "R" for "Rick Cua" and not "C" for "Cua, Rick." Might someone be able to tell me how to get the article to fall under the last name, first category? Thanks again! --Wordy1 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wordy1. The way to categorize an article to make it sort in the category by last name is to type [[Category:name|Doe, John]]. For multiple categories, however, instead of piping the name, you can add directly above the list of categories a single template which sorts all of them by last name: {{DEFAULTSORT:Doe, John}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] would like to tag semi-protected article as POV

The article on feminism is quite biased. For example, the introductory paragraphs assume things that are, in fact, highly controversial. I uncertain about fixing this myself. Can somebody please insert a {{POV-check}} template in this article? Thanks. 64.26.98.90 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the history of your location's edits, I will not. Define a user name and discuss your proposal on the article's Talk page. (SEWilco 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] how do you create a new page

how do you create a new page when the title is two or more words of exsisting titles of pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.134.151 (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you need to have an account to be able to create a new page (just click "Log in/create account" in the top-right corner and follow the instructions). Then, see Help:Starting a new page for directions on how to create a new article. --CrazyLegsKC 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to bias an article indefinitely

  1. Revert war a bit
  2. The article is now hopeless, right? Time for mediation!
  3. Now that the article is under mediation, revert anyone who edits the article in a way you don't like. The article needs to stay in a stable state if mediation is going to succeed!
  4. To counteract this constant threat of mediation-infringing edits, you may wish to protect the article in your preferred state until mediation has concluded.
  5. Of course, mediation can't conclude until you reach agreement with everyone else. Stall for months.

(See Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

— Omegatron 03:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A few months of discussion is not forever, although it may seem like it sometimes. I think mediation is better than an endless edit war. — RJH (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Michael Blanc

I'm sorry, I don't know where to go with this but I noticed an article on Afd, Michael Blanc who was imprisoned for drug trafficcking in Indonesia in 2000. Reading over the aricle, one of the points I noticed claimed the similarities between Blanc and Schapelle Corby. I did some checking, some of it on Google although the majority came from the computer newspaper archive system my library has access to. I started rewriting the article to resemble Schapelle Corby's article and worked on it on and off earlier today.

While rewriting the article, I saved some of it as I went along but I made it clear in the edit summery that I was in the process of rewriting it. During the last hour, the editor who started the Afd debate started reverting my changes and basicly said I was making up these news articles. What he said exactly was that I was using these articles as original research and making "dubious" claims. I'd rather not go into the details, but I'd apprecite if an editor could check the history and see if I did anything wrong.

The problem with this particular person is that I had a previous run with him over his removal of a book used as a reference on a few wrestling articles. I explained to him that I had changed the date of the book from 2000 to 2006 (I just thought this was just a minor typo) as I'd found that was the date used in 247 other articles and provided him with a Google search result. I didn't argue the point with him and provided a competly seperate resource which he didn't seem to have a problem with.

Now he's turning around and using this to claim that I personally added the majority of these books and, in the case of Michael Blanc, I'm doing the same thing. I know my opinion probably isn't worth much as I'm not a Wikipedian, but I've been editing on Wikipedia for the last two months and I've thought my contributions were fairly helpful. I'd like to think that counts for something, but from my point of view this guy seems to be making me out to be some sort of vandal. All I'm guilty of is trying to improve an article that was already on Afd anyway. I don't know if this guy is trying to get me banned or what, but if I've done something wrong I hope someone can tell me. I have three news stories in question which I printed to take home with me so I can at least provide those, if proof is needed. 71.184.48.105 13:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you have the best of intentions and a good understanding of our policy about the importance of having reliable sources. So you should be fine. Two suggestions: first, register for a user account; it's free, you don't have to disclose any personal information, and it will help you build a reputation as a positive contributor because all of your edits will be together, regardless of the computer you use to edit Wikipedia. Second, with regard to this dispute, the best place to go to get personalized help is our editor assistance page; on this page, you may just get editors (like me) who post a quick response. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help. 72.74.220.188 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help

notquite sure which category to use,

the care value base article needs checking up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilko182 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happens when the whole article needs re-writing?

As a newbie to wikipedia (at least as an account holder) I have spent the last hour trying to find an answer to my question. I have failed, so please forgive me for posting it here: I am an interior designer and project manager. As such I frequently look up work related topics on wiki and often find what I need. At times however I come across articles which are so confused and misinformed that a newcomer would be hard pushed to gain the information they were initially seeking. On the understanding that the driving force behind wikipedia is constant improvement, I have recently tried to edit one of these articles. My edit was fairly drastic and (now I understand why) it was rejected as vandalism. I then found the FAQ which instructs us to join the topic's discussion page if we intend to carry out radical editing. Having done so I realised that all those discussing the subject (window blinds) were equally confused. I have no doubt that, had I posted my question there, I would have offended everybody. I appreciate that the initial contributor spent hours, if not days, writing the article. However, isn't the final goal achieving simple and accurate information and then building upon it with the help of wikipedians worldwide? How can this be achieved if the original article is badly constructed, poorly researched and randomly referenced? Will that article remain, for ever, the basis of any possible improvements? Can I use a different definition (i.e. "blinds" instead of "window blinds") and write my own simpler article? Many thanks! --Paleologo 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, your edit to Window blind was not vandalism. What happened was a bot (i.e. not a human) incorrectly assumed, using its algorithms, that the edit was vandalism. I have reverted back to your version. Looking at the text you wrote, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style and also look at the links listed under 'Guidance on style' on the right hand side of that page. this would help show you the correct way to format the text such as putting in headings etc.
Feel free to comment and ask questions on the article's discussion page about improving the article - that's what the page is for. You hopefully won't offend anyone. In fact, the article was not written all in one go by one contributor. If you look here you can see that the first revision was quite short, and all of the other details were added gradually over the years since 2004. People mostly use the existing article as the basis for their changes (you can see how it looked before your change by clicking the history tab) but feel free to totally replace small or large parts of the article with new text. As long as the article is better after than it is before, this should be fine. What you can't do is write two articles on the same subject (see Wikipedia:Content forking). Tra (Talk) 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"What happens when the whole article needs re-writing?" Rewrite the entire article. When faced with a poor article that really needs a rewrite, expansion, and more or better references, I start afresh. It is harder to write a well structured, well weighted, cohesive and consistent article if one just makes lots of piecemeal changes to existing content that is mostly below par, and good referencing is much easier to achieve when working out the available information first and letting the content lead on from that, as one would when creating a new article. In any major rewrite, existing references should be examined to determine exactly what they provide and whether they fulfill their brief; without that, poor quality or inapplicable refs may hang around unchecked next to material that, due to rewriting, is no longer supported properly. Adrian M. H. 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Consider doing a phased approach:
  • Reorganize: Edit the entire article, moving information around into a better organization, but don't add or delete any text except headings. If that means there is a long section with a lot of redundant information, so be it (at this stage of changing the article). The goal here is to get "better bones" for the article; if you don't delete any information, then other editors are much less likely to object. Don't spend time within sections getting them to read well; just do cut-and-paste of information to get it into the right section or subsection.
  • Rewrite: Edit section by section, removing duplicate information, putting what is left in a logical sequence, and rewriting for NPOV and encyclopedic tone. Doing this section by section makes it clear to others what you've done, and if there are objections to one section, that won't impact the others. Don't add information (some bridging/transitional text is okay, where needed), and don't delete any information that seems at all plausible, though unsourced. Again, other editors are less likely to object if your goal at this stage isn't to replace their text with your text.
  • Replace text and expand: Again, edit section by section, so what you're doing is very clear, and any objections can be discussed in the context of a section, not the whole article. This is the point where you add citations, remove plausible but incorrect information, etc. If a section, when you're done with it, is clearly superior in terms of the amount of information and the number of sources cited, you're much less likely to run into opposition.
By contrast, if you do two or three of these stages at the same time, it's much harder for other editors to assume good faith, simply because it's so hard to follow what you've done. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributing to wikipedia!

Hello! I am a newbie at wikipedia! I want to contribute by editing and improving articles where is a good place to start? Bold Vier 07:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A good way to start is to work on known problems. You'll find links to a large number of these at Wikipedia:Maintenance. Another way is to join one or more WikiProjects, and work on articles that are within the scope of such a project. For maintenance, for example, there is Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, not to mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify. More generally, you'll find a directory of WikiProjects (most are about particular topics, like computers and highways in the U.S. and military history) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Good hunting! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Project template

We seem to have a problem with the templates for Project Freemasonry... When you place a template such as {{WikiProject Freemasonry|class=Stub}} or {{WikiProject Freemasonry|class=Start}} on the talk page, it hides the talk page's discussion text. For an example, see Talk:List of Freemasons. Would someone help me to fix this problem. Also posted to VP (Tech). Blueboar 14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it by putting in the closing table tags in Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry/ToDo. Tra (Talk) 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It's always something small like that. Thanks. Blueboar 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a Picture from a Book

I own a copy of a book that contains a picture of the author, who died around the early 1950's That I would like to add to a page. I know I can create a PDF of the picture, however I don't want to violate any copyright laws. How do I do this? I looked at the copyright page in wikipedia, but I don't know which category my picture would fall under. As a scientist, I would normally include the picture with a complete reference, and that would be kosher, but being new to Wikipedia, I'm uncertain on how to proceed. I have noticed that there are similar pictures, like the signed one of Ray Lankester. This one was found at an archive site, but mine is nowhere to be found. Please Help!! Ktrosvik 16:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When is the picture from? If the picture is from before 1923, then it's in the public domain and it doesn't matter. If it is from after 1923, then you need to ensure that it complies with our fair use guidelines. The gist of it is that non-free images have to be low resolution and only to illustrate their subject, such that they will not have a financial impact on the copyright holder.
Also, you'll want to upload your image as an image format, such as .gif, .png, or .jpg, not as a .pdf. - Revolving Bugbear 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't find an original copy of the picture itself, but I've found the picture in the book I own that was originally published in 1951, but my copy was published in 1985. I also found the same an obituary from 1951. the picture itself is from before that time, but I have no idea when. The book is out of print, and the obituary is free, so I would assume that using it wouldn't have any financial impact on the copyright holder of either the book or the obituary, but I'm uncertain about the picture itself.Ktrosvik 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacking proof that the image is in the public domain, you need to assume that it is copyrighted and requires a claim of fair use to be used on English Wikipedia. If you feel that the benefits of uploading the photo outweigh the hassle of using non-free content scan or photograph the image in an image format as Revolving Bugbear notes above. Choose the lowest resolution setting you have. Upload the image claiming {{non-free fair use in}} a particular article and specify why you think fair use is appropriate in this case. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Use rationale examples if you're unsure how to write a rationale. - BanyanTree 12:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! I'll look into all that. Ktrosvik 13:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self Identifying as "Expert"

I'm curious as to what the guidelines/policies are, if any, if a new editor pops in and says they are directly related to something. The prompting for this question is a new editor who just made some changes to the Meerkat Manor article, with their first change summary stating that they are "the creator and series editor of Meerkat Manor (and executive producer of Oxford Scientific Films)." Do we take such stuff at their word or just write them off as nuts? For now, I left them a note on their page that if they claims are true to make sure they adhere to the no conflict of interest and NPOV policies. It does make me wonder, though Collectonian 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That violates WP:COI, doesn't it? And anyway, how can you really be sure that the person is who they say they are? I would be very careful to make sure that the editor doesn't do anything dodgy. The user's edits should be verifiable as well, so if they're just adding uncited information, that's another issue. You may want to ask over at WP:COI/N; until then, I would say keep an eye out for NPOV edits, and make sure the article stays balanced. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Any such editor should be treated with utmost AGF, but possibly reminded that claiming expertise cannot be used to avoid the key policy of verifiability. We neither take anyone at their word, nor write anyone off as nuts (in the absence of evidence). -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It's really best for someone who has (or claims to have) personal knowledge of a subject to contribute that at the talk/discussion page of the article (pointing out inaccuracies, suggesting additional text, etc. - all with appropriate sources, ideally). It's almost impossible for someone really close to something (e.g., the subject of an article) to have a truly neutral point of view; best to let other editors do the actual editing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback :) So far, she seems to be willing to agree to the limits set out for those with a potential conflict of interst and has mostly just left notes in the talk page about information she disagrees with. Collectonian 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That's good that she's cooperating. About her identity: Why don't you just send e-mail to Caroline Hawkins or Animal Planet International to find out if she is really the person she says she is? If so then she'd be an asset for Wikipedia. — Sebastian 04:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I took your advice and emailed Southern Star Entertainment, who has confirmed that she is indeed who she says she is. So COI certainly applies, but anything else to be aware of? Collectonian 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You might also add {{Notable Wikipedian}} to the relevant article talk pages, making sure to explain to the user that this is standard practice so other users aren't caught off guard later on. Point out examples such as Roger Ebert and State Library of Victoria so she knows she's just not being picked on. If you want to make the email official, you should forward it to the OTRS permissions queue, who will then place a tag with an OTRS ticket number on the user's talk page. You may want to ask permission of the user to send her email on to the Foundation. Otherwise, just tell her than she's welcome to the wiki and that, while she will receive extra scrutiny as an account with a self-identified COI, we welcome her corrections and comments on talk pages in which she has a COI, and article edits on pages where she is an expert but has no COI. - BanyanTree 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oo, thanks! Didn't know about that. I added it to the Meerkat Manor article talk page and I left her a note to let her know (and to point her to those examples) :) Collectonian 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)