User talk:Adrian M. H./Archive2

Talk page archive, vol. 2

---

Irish School Aid Article

I rewrote it for a more neutral tone. This is the same person as the one who posted on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.45.61 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 25 May 2007

Please disregard this. The founder of the organization rewote the article and it is back to being fully partisan. Furthermore, said founder has told me: "That he will always rewrite the article, so dont even bother trying to edit it, you are like a saboteur." Yeh, so basicaly, my editing it to neutrality is totally useless. Sucks... --Jitenya 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll be discussing this with him (and you, hopefully) on the article's talk page. If he reverted good edits, he violated WP:OWN, but I'll look into whether that happened. Adrian M. H. 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Now 4tides inserts my nick

Adrian M. H., Thank you.

I can use 4tides now. I was unaware about quote in that "BOX" (what is that box for?) in "my preferences" and after deleting that quote, now it is according to my expectation.

Sincere Thanks for your help/support/advice

AnThRaX Ru 20:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is for customised signatures, like mine. The markup that you see when viewing someone's signature in the edit window is stored in the text box and the check box allows it to function. See WP:SIG for info. Adrian M. H. 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Keep it up ;)

I am seeing you everywhere these days in various parts of the Wikipedia community, so take this, you have most definitely earned it ;) –Sebi ~ 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! That's nice. Adrian M. H. 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pressure Reducing Valve

Hello,

As I have said before, a Pressure Reducing Valve is completely different to a Pressure release valve. The former regulates the pressure, and the latter either shuts off the supply, or releases it to (usually) to the atmosphere when a critical situation has arisen, eg a fire or excess pressure. I'm afraid the link that you have inserted is not correct. Please could my article be reinstated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanners (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 May 2007

Could you please learn how to sign your posts and use headings? It's a pain having to use {{unsigned}} all the time because users don't bother signing. I agreed (and still do) with the comment on your talk page from another editor, requesting that the redirect be done, but if you really want to have a separate article whose content should be covered in another article, then feel free to revert. That's your prerogative. Just bear in mind that if it ever goes to AFD, the consensus is very likely to result in a merge anyway. Adrian M. H. 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian,

Sorry about not signing my last message, I realise now what to do.

I see that there actually is an article called Relief valve which is the same as Pressure relief valve which is what I was banging on about! So Pressure relief valve should really be directed there and not to Safety valve. Call me a pedant, but the two types of valve really are quite different!

Fanners 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's fine. Like I say: BRD and all that, so you can go ahead and change the redirect/reinstate the content/whatever. I'll leave you to set it up how you think best; call it part of the learning process. Adrian M. H. 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian,

Thank you for your help and advice. The redirect seems to have been changed anyway! I hope I don't have to bother you too much.

Fanners 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pressure relief valve has been a redirect for ages. Your article was at Pressure reducing valve and is still a redirect. If you want to change it, click that link and undo my edit from the diffs. Alternatively, you could merge it, which would be easy to do; just take the content from the second revision and rewrite it to fit into a new section in Safety valve. I'm not a plumbing expert, but the safety aspect of a PRV would make it fit that article quite nicely. I'll leave it up to you, but post back here if you need any help. Adrian M. H. 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Stub article

Adrian, Just rewrote my wiki page, please advise if more changes are required to suit Wikipedia. I really desire to get it untagged as a stub. Thanks, Tom aka tocsese —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocsese (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 May 2007

Tocsese, there are some issues here with POV and ownership of articles. I think we should discuss this in more detail at the article's talk page. I have invited Jitenya to contribute as an interested party. Adrian M. H. 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, I have replied to the discussion tab of the article. Could you please remove or move the last two paragraphs from there to here? I do not think they need to be there. What was going on in the background was not an academic debate, rather a family issue. Thanks, Tom aka tocsese.

Sorry, but removing content from talk pages, except for archival (which is not required here) goes against good talk page practice and is very much discouraged. Adrian M. H. 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. How is the article now? Does it conform to Wikipedia standards? If so, can it now be untagged? Or do I need to revise it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocsese (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it's fine in my opinion. As I said on the article's talk page, your recent edits have made it unbiased. I've removed the tag, as I wanted to do a bit of wikifying anyway, but anyone can remove tags once the issue has been fixed or no longer applies. I wouldn't worry about your message on the talk page, if I were you. No one will mind it at all because it relates to our discussion. With regard to the stub status, that's like any tag; anyone can remove it if it no longer applies. But in this case, it's still a stub. Wikipedia:Stub has a bit more info. If you want to expand it, you could write something about the development of ISA, who the key people were, things like that. Basically anything relevant that has already been published somewhere, preferably independent of the subject. See WP:V and WP:OR for info about what kind of sources can be used. Adrian M. H. 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I make a comment when I make an edit? I removed the final sentence about the Radio and TV station, because I feel it gives the false impression that the language situation in Ireland is healthy, which it is not. I wish it were that way. Also, in the history section there is a comment about the original author refusing to allow edits etc. Where is that documented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocsese (talk • contribs)

Do you mean edit summaries, or talk page signatures? Either way, those pages should cover it. I was in two minds about that statement as well; I left it in because I didn't want to remove all the recent additions in their entirety, but I think you were probably right to remove it if it gives an inaccurate impression of the reality. Adrian M. H. 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that another editor reverted your edit, though. Adrian M. H. 15:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Island Kayaker - help

Tks for the comments. However, I am not the only one who thinks Wikipedia's explanatn of translation method is hard to understand: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page#TRANSLATION_2

I am inclined to think the instructions were written by nerds who are happier talking to their macros, C++ and Visual Basic than to real people. Personally I think the authors ought to take a tip from IKEA's furniture instructions - they get by with only diagrammes.

Anyway, you will see how I get on. I will try to create a user sub-page, but even the instrns for that are not exactly easy to follow. Don't forget 98% of computer users are interested in the PC as a tool and have never even heard of editing the Registry , nor are interested in anything that is further than a mouse-click away. Rgds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Island Kayaker (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 May 2007

You don't need any additional PC knowledge to use and contribute to Wikipedia. As I suggested at the NCH, you can ask at the Wikipedia talk:Translation if you get stuck. There does appear to be a place to deposit translated articles if you want to use it (it was empty last night, so its use was not immediately obvious). Sub-pages are easy: two common ways are (1) make a link on your user page along the lines of User:Island Kayaker/name of sub-page and click on it, or (2) add /name of sub-page to the URL in your browser's address bar and hit enter. Either way, you end up at the "create page" screen. I think that, if you are totally new to Wikipedia, you might be jumping in too deep, too soon before you have got used to using a Wiki. Adrian M. H. 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

--Knasielski 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Thanks for the link to the citations page, but when I attempted to use one of the citation code formats, it posted the whole code. Is there a specific code that you suggest I use that would be the easiest? Thanks.

Citations don't use code; not sure what you're on about there. I'll cite an example statement to show you how easy it is:

This statement needs a citation.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org Main Page] ''wikipedia.org, [[May 31]] [[2007]]''.
Retrieved on [[May 31]] [[2007]].</ref>

====References====
<references/>

Which produces:

This statement needs a citation.

References

That's just one example. The first date is a publishing date, by the way, which you would use for any source that is dated. You can use {{reflist}} if you want small refs, which is good for longer lists. Editors are encouraged to follow the layout of the cite templates, but using the templates themselves is not required. Hope that helps. Adrian M. H. 18:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Error in AfD

Can you fix the mess up you made please, when you nominated Supercars.net for deletion, instead of adding the current discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today you added the previous archived one. I don't know what to edit to fix this. Jackaranga 18:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help you, but I followed all three steps per the (not very good) instructions and did nothing different to the usual way. Adrian M. H. 18:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't see this line (If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.). on WP:AFD. Jackaranga 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

this edit of yours is where the error is. Jackaranga 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than screwing up my talk page and pointing out where the error is, why not just tell me how to fix it. Or fix it yourself. That would be more helpful. Adrian M. H. 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for messing up your user page, I did fix it, also as I said above I don't know how to fix, I was only telling you about it so you could fix it and have your request look at, people can't comment on it now, so your effort will have been for nothing, I won't bother you about this anymore I was I only trying to help, sorry you took it the wrong way. Jackaranga 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting me know anyway. Sorry if I was a bit short with you. I'll just have to leave it, as no one has responded to my request at EA yet. Adrian M. H. 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for your speedy input on my article. Your help is greatly appreciated!

---mharr066- 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hey, just wondering which template you use when you welcome newbies; I really like it, but can't figure out how to reproduce it without just copying the wikitext. Thanks! -- Amazins490 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[1]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[2] or History of Northeast China[3][4] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not area of specialist knowledge for me. Sorry. Adrian M. H. 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Andretti curse

• I have added new sources directly covering this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andretti Curse. I invite you to review them and consider whether they might change your opinion on deleting the article. Barno 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to me; I just gave my !vote. I don't like being canvassed in this way. Adrian M. H. 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; most editors who participate in AfD strongly do prefer to be informed if new information is added which is likely to change an objective judgement on the debate. Note that I notified all participants, not just those on one side. Barno 13:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another question regarding "press bias" in writing an article

Adrian,

Thanks for the reply to my question regarding an article on the Pring-Wilson murder trial and retrial. I noticed that the articles are supposed to favor "majority" opinions over "minority" opinions, but I've found that the press coverage of this trial has been universally biased against the defendant, making the "majority" opinion questionable.

The problem appears to be three-fold. First, the trial about a "rich kid" killing a poor street kid is essentially a "man bites dog" story, and many reporters reported it that way, making or selecting the "facts" fit that kind of story. The second may involve some ideological concerns by some in the press regarding reporting crimes about non-whites. The third is that most reporters have never seen a street fight except in the movies, giving it an unreal, sometimes childlike view about what really happens in these physical confrontations.

One example of press bias has to do with the knife used-- brand named the Spyderco "Military" knife. This gives the impression that it's an assault type weapon, which is misleading. It's a 4 inch utility knife (which is legal to carry), and while the situation involved a stabbing, the knife is poorly designed for this purpose. Reporters generally failed to mention this.

Another example has to do with the number of stab wounds. The press reported 5 stab wounds on the victim, 4 of which were superficial and non-life threatening. Only one was significant. By reporting only that there were "5 stab wounds" the reader was left with the distinct impression of a frenzied attack, which is not supported by the medical evidence.

It would also seem that the press generally took the prosecution side in reporting and ignored the defendant's story. They described the fight as being between the victim and the defendant, noting that the victim was "smaller" than the defendant. This ignores the possiblity that the victim and his cousin were the aggressors, making it two against one, with the victim's cousin being as big as the defendant. Except for Saltzman in the Boston Globe, virtually all the other reporters failed to note that the cousin was a bouncer at a local bar and an experienced fighter (with several arrests for assault).

My question is this: can I take a "minority view" if that view is closer to the facts of the case?

Ursa98 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky subject. WP:WEIGHT, which is a sub-section of WP:NPOV, states that we must not give an unfair or imbalanced amount of space to minority viewpoints, and crucially, it goes on to include verifiable statements in that. So what that essentially says is that even the facts must be given a prudent level of weight, which may be difficult to gauge. In the next sub-section, which is about research, it suggests adjusting the weight of the facts according to the reliability and reputation of their sources. WP:RS comes into play there, but there is a degree of subjectivity involved. Newspapers, though they can sometimes be prone to partisan editorial and biased reporting, are generally regarded as reliable sources, not least because they check the facts. In Britain, for example, there is a tradition of partisan newspapers (particularly the tabloids) when it comes to certain subjects (usually politics, immigration, and such like) but their reporting is rarely shown to be grossly inaccurate. I think they still take pride in getting the facts right, for the most part. Anyway... I would approach this article by listing every known verifiable fact and making a note of how many sources I have to back them up. Then try to decide how reliable each of these sources are likely to be and note that. Then you should have a rough picture of the facts of the case and how much weight they received from reliable media, which should help you to decide how much weight to give to contradicting and/or minority reports. Try to write your first draft as factually as possible – absolutely bare bones at first – and then you can fill it out to paint a fair picture of the story. Minority views can be reported in such a way as to leave a certain detachment between you and the facts; "The Daily Echo reported that . . . but was the only newspaper to publish this." I recommend that you do that either offline or in a sub-page of your user space. Adrian M. H. 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased opinion

Adrian M. H., thank you for your unbiased support in the William Remington article. Your comments were absolutely correct. If you are interested, there are quite a few of these articles regarding known loyalty and security risks that are being maintained by one person that paint a rosey picture of known communists, loyalty, and security risks. Would you be interested in working with me to clear out the nonsense, so to speak? Please let me know. Thank you. Jtpaladin 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help, though it proved harder than some 3O cases! I appreciate the request, but I'll have to decline in this instance, because I think it is better to approach multiple cases with the assistance of a variety of editors to avoid any risk of accusations of bias and meatpuppetry and to lend more weight to any consensus should it be needed. Feel free to make use of 3O or RFC, and maybe use RFF and the peer review system to get an outside assessment of specific articles without involving the dispute. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ProfMozart and Romano-German articles

Thanks for engaging with ProfMozart about his Romano-German hobby horse. I am one of the "deleting" editors, if the term is appropriate. Xtreme racer is another. ProfMozart regularly blanks his talk page, so the history of our discussions with him are not immediately apparent. Here are the discussions regarding

• Roman German hybrid
• Fake Rome
• Romano German talk page (as this one was a speedy delete)

If you wish to peruse the history of User talk:ProfMozart you can see our efforts to get ProfMozart to provide substantive sources for his rather odd, often argumentative claims. He finally provided vague references to medieval German poems, including the Grail romance Parzifal. I do not see much hope of an article materializing out of all this. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't either, to be honest. From his post at EA, I got the distinct impression that it would not be a straightforward case. I'm quite happy to leave him to his own devices and if he recreates these pages and they get deleted again, so be it. Thanks for the info. Adrian M. H. 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuals Partners in Infoboxes

I completely agree with your points regarding listing all partners, or no partners, regardless of sexual orientation or inclination. I'm not sure a consensus exists on the issue. Where should I initiate this discussion? I'm opposed to beginning it at WP:LBGT because I'm not sure that would be a neutral arena. Thanks. Talmage 04:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of the applicable infobox is usually the starting point with an issue as specific as this. Often, editors like to provide a link to the discussion in a post at the VP so that more people are aware of it. Adrian M. H. 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: William Remington

Adrian, the dispute is settled on the content of the article. If another editor demands the last word on the talk page, why not let him have it? Otherwise this could go on for a long time and possibly fan the flames again. Just a thought. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate repeated incivility and bad faith from argumentative editors who refuse to accept that they are being helped in good faith simply because the 3O did not meet with their approval. I have continually tried to explain things that should be obvious to him and each attempt is met with further argument and unwarranted criticism, but no appreciation for the continued effort to satisfy him. I consider the matter dealt with as far I am concerned and the editor in question has prejudiced the chance of receiving any future assistance from me. Adrian M. H. 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Violation of third party opinion procedures

Re: your opinions on the Loyola 2L dispute. You provided an opinion before listening to both sides, as is shown by the timestamp of their opinion.

This is in violation of Wikipedia rules regarding third opinions. These rules are described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions . Specifically the requirement that no opinion be given without "Read[ing] the arguments of the disputants" and "Do not provide third opinions recklessly."

Having jumped to a conclusion, you had no choice but to defend it, regardless of what the other side said. This is as absurd as a courtroom where the judge makes a decision after listening to just one side and spends the rest of the trial defending their decision against the other side.

In the process you effectively ruined the third party opinion request. I then made a second request, to give people other than you a chance to opine, yet you ruined that one too, by posting in it three times.

In the future, please follow the third party opinion procedures. --Updatethis12 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to copy your arguments from the article's talk page. Anomie did not jump to any conclusion without first investigating what is a very simple dispute, and the same applies to me. It is very clear cut, and the edit history bears witness to that. You are heading towards repeated AGF contraventions. Your edit cannot meet WP:V and therefore has no place in that or any article. Adrian M. H. 22:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Podilsko-Voskresenska Line

Hey, a user replied to your comment on Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. I won't reply for now, I just want to know what you have to say about User:Hillock65's comment. — Alex^(U|C|E) 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. Adrian M. H. 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you see this faster, the station names are only in Ukrainian in the subway itself. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hi, Adrian M. H.. I've decided to take on your medcab case. If you have any concerns about this, please tell me, otherwise I look forward to resolving the case with you. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised and disappointed that they decided to go for mediation. I came upon this dispute at WP:3O and having responded to it, I thought the two parties involved would eventually come to a suitable compromise. They were both responding positively to my assistance last night, though they began to go around in circles with their replies to each other, so I suggested that they sleep on it and discuss it further today. You can see my input on the article's talk page, and I don't really have anything further to add. I would appreciate it if you would leave me out of the dispute from now on. If it wasn't at 3O, I would not have stepped in anyway. Adrian M. H. 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I sent this message because you were listed as one of the involved parties, not realising you were only there because of 3O. I'll leave you out of proceedings then. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hope it goes well for you; I noticed it was your first case. Adrian M. H. 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

About 2007 F3 Euroseries

You have changed the 2007 Euroseries page - it said Haralds Šlegelmilhs, but you changed it back to Harald Schlegelmilch. His real name is Haralds Šlegelmilhs, so it is the correct variation. 159.148.202.14 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

verifiability is a key policy. Unless you can provide a reliable source that proves this, you cannot go against other established sources, which all refer to him as Harald Schlegelmilch. That includes, the official F3 Euroseries website and press documentation, Autosport magazine, MSN, etc. Repeated attempts to insert unsourced material may be classed as disruption. Adrian M. H. 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

http://autosports.delfi.lv/public/30696.html, http://autosports.delfi.lv/public/30677.html, http://autosports.delfi.lv/public/30668.html. 159.148.202.14 08:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not English language sources, and the English Wikipedia has a policy about names, which extends to proper nouns in text: use the common English version where possible and since our results tables only contain one name per entry, we use the English name. This procedure is applied to all motor racing articles on the English Wikipedia. All English language sources use the English interpretation of his name as well. I suggest that you live with the established consensus and guidelines. Adrian M. H. 14:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hello, Akhristov. Just posting to let you know that I won't be involving myself in your mediation case, as I want to remain impartial and don't really have anything to contribute beyond the third opinion. But I hope that it brings a positive outcome for both you and Kuban Cossack. Kind regards, Adrian M. H. 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'll let you know what the result is. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks Adrian

You gave me some pointers on my first wikipedia submission re: footnotes (editors' section). I haven't fully gone over it all, but will attempt to make changes soon.

Sorry about the trouble: for a novice not so computer savvy, navigating this site can be a little intense.

Thanks so much for all your help! Nomoreworldwar 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. You can post again in this section if you have any more questions with which I can help. Adrian M. H. 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like your userpage

I think it's literally one of the best ones I've seen on Wikipedia, but then again, I don't look at many people's pages, your is one I stumbled across. =) Would you mind, since I'm such a noob, if I use some of the elements on your page? Maybe some tips on how to make a good userpage? Crad0010 22:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure; it's obviously licensed under GFDL anyway! Although, if you'd like to make your something of your own design, I can help you with that. You can get more inspiration (as I did) from the Hall of Fame at The Transhumanist/User page design and there is a userpage Wikiproject around somewhere that has a place for requests for assistance. Not sure if it's still active. Drop by if you have any questions. Adrian M. H. 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Adrian,

I appreciate your feedback on my questions about citations. I was wondering if you could check my recent contributions and see if I am doing something wrong. It has stopped for the moment but Charles usually reverts my requests for citations. Any help would be appreciated if I have erred in my edits. We seek to make the articles balanced and present all sides.

Thanks!I vonH 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Much needed dispute resolution

Can you please resolve the dispute on the List of Mario series enemies as TTN will not back down after being outvoted and out debated in a consensus discussion. He is denying admin authority and is ignoring a clear consensus against his point of view. Please tell him to stop so we can get on to more worthwhile things and make him understand that OOU info isn't needed, and there is a consensus against him and it's about time he gave up and faced the facts. Henchman 2000 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I might look into it, but if one editor is ignoring consensus, I doubt if I will be able to offer any further persuasion. If the dispute continues, I recommend using either mediation or RFC if you have not already tried both. More info at WP:DR. Regards, Adrian M. H. 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless you, dear Adrian...

Were my brother to read that subject headline, he'd ask: What are you, a nun caught in 1950...but I don't care. BLESS YOU for pointing me to adoption. This wiki world is too scary to go it alone...smiles.Nomoreworldwar 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not-trivia section heading

Adrian, I appreciate your response to my New Contributors Help Page query. I'm determined to replace Trivia as a section heading, so am soliciting advice as to what section heading would be appropriate. Considering that the surname of Kliment Voroshilov has a Disambiguation page mentioning numerous eponymous items, even more than are included in the present list on his page (which can be expanded to suit), I would not incorporate them into the body of the article. In light of this, what would you suggest? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: Done! Thanks for pointing me to the "avoid trivia" directives; that did help (upon rereading!). -- Deborahjay 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I would probably go with Eponyms as a suitable non-trivia heading. Adrian M. H. 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD invite

Adrian, an article you commented on has been nominated for deletion: Romano German, moved to Romano-German culture. Stop by if you wish. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that from ProfMozart's discussion page. Thanks. Adrian M. H. 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the West Highland Free Press article, being a lowly editor I wasn't sure that I was correctly stating wikipedia's position. All the best. Mmoneypenny 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. Adrian M. H. 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Full Rigged Ships

Hello Adrian - Found some unexpected time tonight to work on the article: footnotes reformatted (I give up upon alternate special markup for repeated footnotes :), Section titles rewritten, two paragraphs repositioned, and minor text/typo editing. Hope that you like the changes. So.. back to a particular request. It is good to confirm that in spite of this article's ongoing editing, it has been indexed by Google and no doubt by other search engines as well. With that mind I will ask you again, as an editor can you sign off that this 'article' conforms fairly well to Wiki standards, and thereby can the two large boxes at the top of the page, announcing the article's deficiencies be edited down to smaller text with less emphasis. It is a bit uncomfortable, to immediately see large announcement boxes at the top of one's article that proclaim deficits. I would predict this would drive some potential visitors off the page before they has chance to read the material. best regards, Ben ~~~~

Hi Ben. I'll sort the refs for you and see if I can get a lead section in there (which is very important, as I said at RFF). I'll keep it brief (not being an expert in this subject) and you can expand it later per WP:LEAD. The formatting and layout is close enough that you (or anyone) can remove the {{Wikify}} tag (I'll take it out while I'm editing it), but I think the {{essay}} tag is still relevant. Don't be too embarrassed by a few tags; they are not there to shame anyone, but to encourage specific improvements. But there is no alternative to tags and they don't get smaller! No-one signs off articles (except in GA reviews, of course); WP is supposed to be a collaborative and classless society in which we all have to use our judgment. Adrian M. H. 14:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: There is a link on the essay tag that goes to How to copy-edit, which is worth reading, and there are further links at the bottom of that page, including the Guide to writing better articles. I have sorted the refs now, with extra data (a la WP:CITET) and no repeats, and a brief lead is now in place, which could use some expansion. Adrian M. H. 15:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian -

Thanks and much appreciation for your understanding and continued editing tutorial on behalf of this article. I'll next dig into How to copy-edit, Guide to writing better articles and WP:CITET.

Now I better understand what constitutes a Lead Section, and will look closely at the markup for your revision of footnotes. Understand what you are saying about editing tags top page. Enjoy the remainder of your Sunday.

best regards, Ben Merlynne6 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Jewish Museum

Dear Adrian,

I see from previous posts that you are very helpful with novices so I'd like to ask your input on a post for The Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco. The text was submitted by my PR firm, which I've since learned was not an appropriate action. That said, the museum deserves mention and is notable for its design by architect Daniel Libeskind. Currently flagged for "conflict of interest," I'd appreciate it very much if you could help guide me on how to put this entry into compliance with community standards. Many thanks for your time.

Shann23 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it if I get a moment. Adrian M. H. 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your contribs show nothing but this post, so the article must have been deleted. There has never been an article at Contemporary Jewish Museum (no deletion log) so I cannot help any further unless you know the exact title that you used. Adrian M. H. 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, thanks for your response. I should have explained that a colleague of mine did the original post, and it is found as follows: The Contemporary Jewish Museum We are looking for your guidance on how to comply with wikipedia standards, thanks again, Shann23 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No wonder I could not find it – that contravenes the naming conventions by using the definite article. The first thing that I will do is move it – then I will make a quick check for online sources, because I have concerns about its notability. Because I'm not in a position to find likely offline sources such as newspaper and magazine articles about this museum, I would appreciate it if you could let me know as soon as possible if you know of the existence of such sources. In its current unverified state, I should really stub it. Adrian M. H. 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

From Special:Whatlinkshere, I found Constance (Connie) Wolf, which almost certainly fails WP:N. Again, if you know of suitable sources that will allow it to meet this guideline, let me know. Adrian M. H. 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, thanks so much for hanging in there with me. I will add several links here but many newspaper citations are on pdf so let me know how I might send to you in that format. In the meantime, here are some links that verify the status of the museum Another point in its favor is architect Daniel Libeskind, who has a Wiki page.

Thanks!!

FORBES.com http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2007/05/14/businesswire20070514006422r1.htm

SAN FRANCISCO Business News.com: http://sanfrancisco.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=118890&type_news=latest

SAN FRANCISCO SENTINEL http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=2117

If you want to stub the post, that seems fine as well. Anything to remove our "conflict of interest" flag and might that give us a way to start again correctly?

Again, I appreciate your help. Shann23 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good start. The first URL is dead, but it looks like there is enough available to demonstrate notability per WP:N, especially with the offline content. If it were just down to the Libeskind connection, that would not be enough, because notability is not inherited. That's why the Constance Wolf article will probably have to go to AFD unless specific, dedicated source material can be found that establishes her notability independent of the museum (even though those treatments will probably approach her career from the perspective of the CJM). If you would like me to use the PDFs, you can upload them to a server or file transfer site, but I don't use e-mail addresses with Wikipedia. It might be better if you make use of them yourself. Adrian M. H. 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism dispute

Hi Adrian. In case you're not watching my talk page, I thought I'd let you know I posted a response there. Thank you. Charm ©† 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes not working out

I see you've been working on my post titled Omar Yussef. The problem is that I don't understand how to "clean up" the post. You've tagged that it needs "cleaning up", but I'm supposed to guess what that means. I'm confused by the ref codings -- I believe I've followed the instructions, but they aren't showing up as they're supposed to. Can you help me with that? FOr example, there are supposed to be three references at the moment, but only two show up and the text of the third one has been moved entirely to the References section.

...In an earlier post, I said that these things were not explained in clear English and you seemed not to agree. What I meant was that Wikipedia shouldn't be all about the coding -- it should be about the content. I have all the content and references lined up, but it's very problematic for someone who doesn't understand technical terms to get that content onto Wikipedia. For example, why isn't there a simple message anywhere saying "Put your content here, click this button, and x days later it'll either be an entry in the Wikipedia or you'll have to answer questions about it"? In other words, a guide for people who aren't computer programmers like you.

By the way, did you add some codes to the footnotes? When I look at what's now on the page there appear to be extra codes in the References which I didn't put there and I don't understand what effect they are having. In any case they're not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annavollans (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 July 2007

WP is not "all about coding" - it's pretty simple to learn (a gazillion vandals manage to pick it up remarkably quickly) and you don't need coding specialisms. No, you're not supposed to "guess" what the tags advise you to do - you're supposed to go find out. Like checking the guidelines, such as the MoS. And I'm not a programmer; read my user page and you'd know that. No, I did not add any code to the footnotes - the mess that you see there is your doing and I think it would be more productive for you if you were to figure it out for yourself. There is a simple guide at the top of my second archive if that helps. And please remember to format comments properly and add a signature. Thanks. Adrian M. H. 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: third opinion

Sorry, I thought I was supposed to move it when the discussion was over or when everybody made a compromise. Mr. Killigan 05:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Adrian M. H. 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag on The perfect robbery

I've slightly altered the wording on your deletion box on The perfect robbery in the hope that this will stop the director of the film getting upset, I hope you don't mind! LookingYourBest 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all; thanks. Although there shouldn't be any need to pander to abusive vandals! Adrian M. H. 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

3O

Hi, I'm Joie de Vivre. I recently had an unpleasant experience at 3O to which you are tangentially related. I wanted to ask you to clarify the meaning of something you said in an edit summary.

The sequence of events at the 3O was as follows: the first event was my request for a third opinion at 21:11 on July 12. The second event was GTBacchus responding to the request at 22:15, also on July 12. At 8:09 the next day, on July 13, I was chastised by User:DRosenbach, where they said the following:

It seems that you already have a 3PO involved. Are you unhappy with his/her perspective and wish to garner increased involvement? I don't think this is the place to do it.

This, of course, is a total misrepresentation of me, as I requested the 3O before GTBacchus responded. At 8:55, you removed the request, saying that GTBacchus had "already" provided assistance. Did you mean that he already provided assistance after my request, or did you have the same opinion of DRosenbach, that my request was superfluous because he had already provided a response? Please respond. Thank you. Joie de Vivre° 17:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He provided assistance without removing the entry at 3O; that is all. This might have been because he provided his opinion independently of the 3O project without seeing it listed, or he merely forgot to remove the entry while he concentrated on the task of assisting with your dispute, which can happen sometimes. When an editor notices this, usually by visiting the talk page in question with the intention of providing a response, it is normal procedure to clear out the redundant entry. This is not to be taken as anything other than regular housekeeping. It is clear to anyone who wishes to check that your request predates GTBacchus's response, and I am sure that no one would claim otherwise without first checking the history. I am sure that DRosenbach would not have jumped to the wrong conclusion without checking; do you know what prompted DRosenbach to make his comment? It reads as if he is referring to a second 3O request or similar. Adrian M. H. 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Adrian thanks for consolation on my failure/withdrawl at Afd that you mentioned on Editor requests. I only mentioned it because I must of been searching for the wrong person and was glad to be corrected and fuzzy!. I see you all the time on Ea/R and you are a great and very civil editor (who doesn't mind the odd ribbing!) Mike33 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Mike. Adrian M. H. 13:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page tabs

Thanks for your comments on the proposal.

As I wrote when the "+ tab" issue was raised recently, I see no problem with it, based on my own experience of finding my way around WP. It logically equates to adding something new.

Several people said that it took them months to figure this out, though. So even though it's not a problem for you, it is for other people. Have you asked non-Wikipedian friends if they can figure out how to leave a comment if they see an error in an article? I've asked several of mine, and they weren't even aware they could edit the article without logging in.  :-) I think our interface needs some serious revamping to continue attracting contributions from passers-by.

Would you be opposed to one of the shorter variants, like "New topic"? — Omegatron 12:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the + sign. The width of the tabs is too wide when all tabs are visible, leaving the Twinkle tab for SD right under the watchlist link. Having to make sure I don't click in a hurry.

The point is to be readable to newcomers, not experienced editors with customized interfaces. You can make the tabs say whatever you want on your end. I have "edit this page" shortened to "edit", for instance.

if(document.getElementById('ca-edit')) {
        document.getElementById('ca-edit').firstChild.innerHTML = 'Edit';
    }

— Omegatron 12:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I made an addition to one of the other poll sections in which I suggested a second-choice alternative of "new section". "New topic" would be OK as well. Thanks for the JS code. Adrian M. H. 13:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my page...

Hi adrian... I am confused as to why the free self help site that has helped me reclaim my bank charges was removed.... This was a mission statement and explanation as to what this self help forum is all about.... It isn't here for any commercial advertising as the site is not a commercial one....... I am not trying to be funny or rude....I am just confused as to why there is a commercial site called consumer action group on here... But the free one is removed?? All legal beagles does is support claimants....give advice....supply free template letters and offer a chat room for live help... They haven't taken any money from myself or any other member......

What would I be able to put on wikipedia to explain what this helpful site is all about???

Also under 'Bank Charges' search there is another page that explains how the charges are being reclaimed in the uk at the moment... This also has other similar sites listed and linked on it.........isn't that a bit one sided?? As again this commercial site is listed on there......they are listed as a UK business.....

Can you help explain what I can and can't put on my page please and what the other sites have done that I haven't... Thanks Russ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalbeagles (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 July 2007

It is important that you remember to sign all posts on talk and project pages, Russ. Now to your question about the external link. There are two main factors here: First of all, you must remember that all content is subject to review by human beings making typical human judgments, so there are a swathe of unsuitable links littered around WP's articles. That is not an excuse for similarly unsuitable content to be added (indeed, to digress slightly, this is a point known as Other Crap Exists, which is often brought up in AFD debates). What it means is that there are too few good, experienced editors contributing to WP. The second issue, which I raised at NCH, is the COI. Required practice for external links with which you have any association is to propose the link on the relevant talk page and let other editors discuss and decide. If there is no feedback, it does not go into the article. WP is driven by consensus, which we have spent months or years building. Being bold is fine, as long it does not contradict another guideline, policy, or established consensus. Now to the matter of your user page. If you have read WP:UP (from the links on your talk page) you will know what we expect of user page content. WP:NOT is also relevant. Your intention is, to be frank, largely irrelevant; it is the content that has to be addressed. I opted to take a soft approach with a new user and not add a speedy nomination, but just remove the offending content and expect that you would learn from it. Normally I would WP:PROD or speedy such pages. Please take some time to get to know and understand the policies, guidelines and working practices that allow us to run this project and you will find that you get more out of it. Adrian M. H. 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi adrian...thanks for explaining that....but I am even more confused as the othersite that is clearly advertising on here under 'consumer action group' on here....can you check this out please.......as their page is also for a forum that is the same as ours....yet is still on here... they are a registered company in the uk 'Reclaim the right limited'.....All I want as you probably can appreciate is for our site to help as many people as possible.....

I didn't realise that by removing any links and just putting what we do would breach your policies.......my appologies for that....but I am new and couldn't understand the process you use to asses new pages and links....

Again sorry for any confusion....

Russ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalbeagles (talk • contribs)

I assume by "your", you mean Wikipedia. As I explained above, an editor cannot simply judge an edit (of any kind) against similar examples without considering whether those examples actually represent good practice or are within the guidelines. What you see may in fact not be a welcome addition and the fact that it exists is not indicator to the contrary, but merely an indicator that none of the editors who have seen it have either (a) thought that it should be removed or (b) actually decided to remove it. Once you develop an understanding of the guidelines and working practices of Wikipedia, you will be able to make such judgments for yourself and remove any unsuitable links. I cannot read the mind of the editor who removed your link, but it could have been removed for either or both of the two reasons that I had previously described. Certainly, the COI is the most significant issue and is blatantly obvious by your user name. Link additions that are subject to COI are almost always identified as linkspam and removed on sight because the addition of those links goes against established protocol. No doubt Cornellrockey will cite one or both of those reasons. Adrian M. H. 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi adrian.....sorry to seem like I am going on.....but the page "consumer action group" is nothing to do with me...

I was just trying to point out that this company has also posted on wikipedia and does the same as we do.....well sort of...they expect donations of money and are a registered business in the uk...

Sorry if I wasn't clear....I get a bit carried away as this company has personally attacked a close friend of mine on their site with inflamatory comments and slander...

I don't want to bring any animosity here or go causing any trouble.....

I just wanted a level playing field so all the free self help forums on the internet that give consumer advice are represented evenly...

I was making a page for the legalbeagles forum the one you pointed out I had made a page without considering the rules here...

Again sorry for that.....

I was just upset that the page I did was removed......yet the page the other forum posted here is deemed acceptable....even though it advertises their company...

Thanks for your time and consideration in this.......

and I just worked out the signature thing at last....lol

Russ Legalbeagles 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the Consumer Action Group. We are discussing the link to www.legal-beagles.co.uk, of which you described yourself (at NCH) as a member. Therefor you have some association with the website (COI) and your stated intention for wanting to add the link is not compatible with Wikipedia. In your last post here, you seem to be changing your story from a link addition to an article creation, but I know that you have not created an article about Legal Beagles because there is no deletion log at that red link. Looking through your contribs brought up this edit, which is totally unambiguously SPAM. Accordingly, I have reverted your revert of Cornellrockey. It seems to me that you are getting confused between external links, wikilinks and links to sources in footnotes. For example, Consumer Action Group has an article (because it is notable enough) to which there is a wikilink in the Bank Charges article. It is notable because:

1. It is the subject of multiple (at least two in this case) independent editorial sources.
2. It has been featured on a national television programme.

However, you tried to insert a link to the Legal Beagles website and disguise it as footnote! Can you appreciate how that looks? And you explain it by citing the existence of the Consumer Action Group article. Which, by the way, does not have an external link to that organisation's website, either in its own article or in the Bank Charges article. In the Bank Charges article, I have trimmed the four references of paragraph four down to just two references because there was an excessive quantity of external links being used to cite a non-controversial statement and those links could have been interpreted as a stealthy form of link spam, much like yours was. I hope that this clarifies it for you. Adrian M. H. 21:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A little appreciation

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work in handling editor assistance and third opinion requests. You're, for the most part, diplomatic and you tirelessly dig for whatever policy/guideline applies to any given situation. Keep up your great work. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks!

Adrian,

Thanks so much for your speedy reply/help!

I just added content to my article but don't understand how to verify anyhting. I have sources that will verify, but I am clueless as to how to do this...and I've read everything you suggested. This is really frustrating.

Thanks again,

Gary Klein user:n2ifi G. Klein 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have read (in order, ideally) WP:V, WP:REF and WP:FN, you should find it straightforward to cite your sources. Look at the GAs and FAs to see how it is done. And go to the second page of my archive (link at the top) and you will see a brief guide to the structure of footnotes. The article needs some cleanup and "wikification" as well. Again, look at the structure and style techniques of good articles, and read through the MOS pages. This includes big changes like sections and small changes like the change that I made to the first line. Adrian M. H. 20:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just had to revert your last couple of edits, which I have explained in the summary. This is all part of the process of article development on WP. Adrian M. H. 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Adrian,

I've found articles about record producer friends of mine in WP. Knowing these guys as well as I do, I'm sure none of them have the computer know-how to publish an article, anywhere.

I'm curious as to how these articles about my friends were verified, let alone, given citations, sources and references.

My last edits made my article easier to read. I bolded the artist's name to clarify things and I changed some of the language. Now that's gone.

I am listed in THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RECORD PRODUCERS (p.403), written by Eric Olsen, Paul Verna and Carlo Wolff. ISBN 0823076075 Published in 1999 by Watson-Guptill Publications,1515 Broadway, New York, NY10036

I'm really trying to do the right thing, but since my expertise is not in editing, I'd appreciate some practical way of getting my article accepted on WP.

I wouldn't be going through this if my son haden't told me that "everyone else is on WP, but you."

I can read everything over and over, but this is not for beginners,as I've noticed from what others have written.

How about a little compassion for a middle-aged record producer who doesn't want to be forgotten?

Thanks,

Gary Klein n2ifi —Preceding unsigned comment added by n2ifi (talk • contribs)

There are some things to bear in mind when editing or creating articles:

• The requirement to stay within long-accepted methods for style and layout, which this article does not currently meet. The inappropriate use of bold text only makes this worse.
• The need to cite your sources, even if the only thing that you can do is provide embedded citations next to each of the key statements, but these are naturally limited to online sources. WP:REF outlines a respectable minimum for when and where to use citations. This particular article is subject to BLP (you will see why when you follow that link) which means that WP:V has to be applied even more strictly than usual, even though you are writing about yourself.
• I would say that you are notable enough, so you deserve an article, but the COI guideline is intended to discourage editors from writing about themselves because of the difficulty in remaining neutral. The need for absolute neutrality in WP's content is a policy and one of the Five Pillars.
• Remember that no one owns any part of WP; that means that we have to edit collaboratively and accept any genuine improvements to any article. That is another integral tenet of Wikipedia.

Don't feel left out because there was no article about you recently; all those other articles were created at one time or another because someone decided that their subjects were notable enough and might be worth writing about, even if it might occasionally occur because of a sense of completism on the part of some editors. Those articles would not have been written by their subjects.

I don't have a big issue with you writing about yourself, because you have a positive attitude and it is not as if you are trying to promote a business or product (we get a lot of that). But you will need to think about whether you would benefit from collaboration with another editor, perhaps from one of the music-related WikiProjects. I'd offer to write it for you myself, but I'm even busier than usual right now, so I wouldn't be able to devote any time to it. My "to do" list never gets any smaller! If you want to get in touch again, I will probably be around here tomorrow evening UTC time. Adrian M. H. 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way: when you sign your comments on talk pages, you need to place it after the comment, not at the top of the page or anywhere else. Adrian M. H. 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How to Block a Vandalized Page?

Hi Adrian,

A page I worked on was vandalized. I fixed it, but wonder if I can have it locked so it won't be vandalized again? Is there some kind of process to apply for that? Thank you!

Superpup1414 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is.... It's at WP:RPP. But protection (even just semi-protection) is only applied when absolutely necessary, because it undermines WP's open editing policy if there are a lot of locked pages. It takes repeated, regular and fairly significant acts of vandalism to warrant protection. Good to see that you're still around, by the way! Adrian M. H. 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your super quick reply as always. Unfortunately, I am an idiot and though I looked at the linked page, don't really get what to do...where do I find the protection list to at least try to add the page? It hasn't been repeated vandalism, but it was significant, and also it is Pokemon and those pages seem to attract trouble... Speaking of trouble, I made the changes yesterday to fix the page, but then today when I looked it up the changes didn't show at first! Then I signed in and they were there. What does that mean? Why would they show up only after I signed in? This is also rather worrisome.

Thanks again for your help. (I've been around, I'm just very quiet) Superpup1414 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless the MediaWiki boffins were testing out the forthcoming "stable version" system (see somewhere in the Village Pump archives), which is unlikely, it must have been your browser relying on its cached pages. It would been forced to refresh the pages after you logged in. I would only recommend posting at RPP when there is evidence of sustained and regular vandalism, otherwise the request will be rejected. I know that most admins take protection very seriously and only use when really necessary. That point is reached when the rate of vandalism swamps the editors who patrol the page. The Recent Changes patrollers are pretty good anyway, so most attacks get reverted within minutes. Adrian M. H. 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again--

I tried checking again tonight unlogged in and all seems to be well; my changes showed up. Okay, I'll take your advice and not rush to try to lock it. I put it on watch for me, so hopefully if someone runs through it again, at least I'll know more quickly.

Thanks as always--you're very kind and patient! Superpup1414 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! Adrian M. H. 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to New editor looking for second opinion

thanks a lot for your help, i will keep trying to expand it but there doesn't seem to be very much of it about on the internet. I guess i'll just have to dig a bit deeper. Anyway yeah, thanks! Bizzmag 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have responded in the thread at RFF. Adrian M. H. 20:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message

Hi Adrian, I just read your comments on the Village Pump regarding the welcome bot, so I thought I'd see what your welcome message looked like, since I hadn't run across it. I really liked the layout and compactness, and was wondering if you'd mind if I used that as a template and modified it to be a version of the one I currently use (Bottom of this page shows my current welcome.) I agree with your comment about some greetings being "off" a bit, and I have been thinking of how I could improve mine lately. If you mind, I fully understand, and I'll simply work on the existing one I use. Thanks, Have a great day! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally publicise it, but you asked so nicely that it would be mean of me to object! I'm sure you've already found the page from doing a sub-page search thingy (can never remember which special page that is). Actually, I was thinking of tweaking the wording in case it's a bit too formal and off-putting; I think it's a difficult balance between being a bit bitey and failing to indicate the importance of the way in which we work here, and I thought that some of the custom templates are maybe bit too chilled out. Adrian M. H. 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Now tweaked. Adrian M. H. 22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually if there is a subpage search thingy, I have yet to find it, lol. Normally I just do a bit of investigative digging to figure it out :D What I like about it is its compact size, and how the three columns fit well, top/bottom alignment. What I'd change (just being a girl and prefering bright colors and cute pictures lol) would be to add a tiny little smiley face and rewrite the last part to "sound" more like me. I tend to be pretty friendly, and while I can most definitely be formal, it isn't my habit to do so when welcoming newcomers. (Not to say that isn't okay too, frankly I'd have loved that welcome message when I joined!) I thought at first I could trim some of the links, but sheesh, looking at it, I wish I had found some of those pages long before I did. Anyway, I'd be more than willing to show you prior to ever using it, and get your approval, if you wish. (My main issue is I'm completely clueless with programming stuff, and the language that's used here baffles me, mostly it takes me hours of just finding something I want things to look like, then changing one thing at a time to see the effect. Took me 8 hours to redo my main page this morning, lol!) Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's something about finding sibling pages, or something.... Anyway, I'd be more than happy for you to use my template, as long as you don't want to modify it in any way (I don't like smiley faces!) but if you would rather create a different version that is more personal to you (the personal touch is one of the reasons why I created my own template, and I'm sure that's the same for you) I would be glad to help you to combine the best bits from my template and yours into a design that really suits you. Adrian M. H. 22:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, forgot to say: You're right about those links. I went through two previous designs that had fewer links and they just didn't provide the extensive info that I know that new editors need (but often struggle) to find. I was inspired by some of the larger custom designs that use a similar columnar layout. Adrian M. H. 22:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the smiley face I included is the same size as the one above, so I don't think it is too intrusive, yet it conveys the message of "welcome" better than mere words can, so I'd like to keep that in. I have it immediately at the top. The other changes I made were just to change the background color of the section headers, and I centered the section header text (although I don't really think it looks right, but I'm not sure how else it would look better and still be sufficiently different from yours. I'm off to sleep now, but I will work on it more in the morning, and shoot you the link to get your input if you have the time tomorrow, if that's alright. Thanks again! ^Ariel♥Gold 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll be around if you want my help at any point. Adrian M. H. 23:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just found that special page: It's at Special:Prefixindex. Adrian M. H. 23:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, sweet, that will be a big help for me (I tend to make 'project' pages and misplace them, lol!). I've been working on the welcome, but I've got to run errands this morning, and I'm still not sure I like the look. Quick question, the default font size seems to be <font size=2> and the <small> tag seems to be font size 1. I noticed in the table, you were able to use % values, to size the font at a place between default, and small. Is that something only available inside a table? If so, I think I'd maybe like to somehow make a second table inside, at the bottom, so I could make that last paragraph a little less space-consuming. What do you think? ^Ariel♥Gold 10:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you can use % values anywhere. CSS font values can be in pixels, ems, exes, or percentages. The last three are relative, which means that a value of 70% or 0.7em would be roughly two-thirds of the default text size for the reader's browser (or two-thirds of the specified font size if you have added a font size declaration to the html attribute in a web page's style sheet, which is an inheritable declaration). For example, this text is 0.7em and this text is 1.2em. An em is dictated by the size of a lower-case m and an ex is from a lower-case x. - Adrian M. H. 10:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Whooooooosh* lol. All of that went right over my head. I honestly know zero about this CSS or whatever script/language is used here. While I can figure out how to make something work by looking at someone else's and changing things, I have no idea what things do, or what each part is called. I don't know what an em is, or what exes are, lol. Sorry. (*Ashamed*). I am really sorry, but I've always used a WYSIWYG editor to do my web pages, and only know very basic (bold, italic, break, paragraph) HTML commands. So add that to the fact that Wiki doesn't even use those (or seems not to) and you have Miss Clueless (me) lol. However, I'll look at how you changed the font size in that post above and play with that and see if I can do what I was thinking. :) ^Ariel♥Gold 11:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no worries. If you get stuck with something, just ask and I'll be glad to fix it. Adrian M. H. 11:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, prelim version is here if you can take a look. Note that I purposely centered the links and organized them by length, I realize it may look a bit less "professional" and I'm okay with that, but what I'd really like to know is how to make things align to the top. For instance, please see This page which I tried to use the three-column format, but the colored header section won't align up top. I've tried adding the tags for align (in various forms, since I don't know what works and what doesn't) and nothing works. If you can look at the source and tell me what I've got wrong, and how to align those sections to the top of the box I'd be very appreciative! ^Ariel♥Gold 14:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks aligned correctly, unless you want the three groups on the second row to line up with each other. This is possible, although it will create gaps, of course. To do it, you'll need to rearrange the six sections into a different order, as follows:

1. Remove the extra {| and |} bits so that the six sections are now in just one table instead of three tables.
2. Move sections 3 and 5 (Community and Policies/Guidelines) to the second and third positions.
3. Remove the |- bits until you have just one divider between the third and fourth sections and one divider above the first section.
4. Then add valign="top" next to those two dividers.
5. Make sure that each of the six sections begins with a | to give them their own cells.

If I have correctly interpreted what you want to do, that should achieve it. Adrian M. H. 15:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm... I'm trying to understand, but not having a lot of luck, lol. Let me clarify, on the /Other page, I want the three boxes that are purple, to line up at the very top of the box that is the main box. The places listed are fine, but the purple boxes are all over the place, because the middle list is longer, and the third list is shorter. I'm not sure where/how there are six sections...? Realize I don't understand the terminology or method I used to obtain the results I got, lol. I spent 2+ hours just changing stuff, preview, change other stuff, preview, until I found the right place to put things. But in the end, I could not get the three purple boxes to all be along the top, even with each other. (In Photoshop I'd just select them and hit "align top" lol).

What did you think of the welcome thingy? :) ^Ariel♥Gold 15:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be a browser display issue (maybe even a cache issue) at your end, because the purple boxes (the first row) line up on the horizontal directly below the first text area when I view it. That said, I just viewed it in IE7 and the only differences to Firefox are the border colour and the lack of small text (not sure why). By "sections" I meant each of the six sets of links in the table. If you want the second row to line up as well, that may be doable with some changes to the links, but I think that having all the most useful links is the most important thing. Adrian M. H. 16:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

New topic (easier to edit lol)

Alright I'm still a bit confused, so I've taken a screenshot, I brought it into Photoshop, and I placed the headers (in a lighter color) where I want them to be, to show you what I mean, because I think that I'm having trouble explaining due to my lack of knowledge. So, here's the picture of what I want Example See how (for me anyway) the purple boxes aren't at the top? They're scattered due to the differing lengths of the lists. I'd like all three to be at the top, (and I consider the list to be the same thing as the header, isn't it the same column? One row, three column table?).

The welcome message box is just fine, to me those all seem aligned, even though the lists are different, so if you can compare the two, you can see why I'm confused why the ones on the /Other page are different. Thanks again for taking the time to help me, I'm sure it is frustrating for you as well, to have to "dumb" everything down lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I missed your link to that page, so I though you were still talking about the welcome template! Doh! Anyway, I made some changes and fixed it for you to save you some time and energy. Looks OK now. Adrian M. H. 16:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• 

  Omg you're an angel! That's exactly what I meant! (And yes, all along I was talking about that page, not the welcome one, lol. I'm so sorry I was not clear!). Seriously, thank you, you made it all pretty like I wanted it! Okay, changing topics: Do you think the welcome message is alright to use? Do you feel it is too similar to yours? I honestly do not wish to intrude, trust me, after struggling just to get my user page how I want (took me a full day, and then some) I could understand feeling put out if someone copies things. (On the other hand, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, is it not? :) )^Ariel♥Gold 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe! It is indeed. I don't mind at all that it's similar and you have put your own stamp on it, which is great. I was, and still am, happy to help you. Anytime you need to know something about CSS style declarations, drop by! Adrian M. H. 17:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL you may be sorry you offered! I'm sooo confused about CSS stuff. I started making web pages back in... (omg I'm old) 1995 or so, and I'd just barely grasped the basics of HTML (I'm definitely not the programming-minded type of woman) and then everything changed on me, so I'm still in the dark ages, still using basic HTML and always use a WYSIWYG editor, I've never done any CSS stuff, that's not a ready-to-use template. I'm learning somewhat here, and trying to understand, but I've had little success with understanding the CSS help articles, lol. Anyway, thank you again for fixing my page, and for the honor of allowing me to use your welcome as well. It is very much appreciated! ^Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Told you...

You might be sorry :) Alright, I have a question about information that is in tables, when you have some free time and you're bored. :) Is there any way to add 'sections' into tables, so that they may be edited without having to open the entire page? See this for an example. It would be much easier for me to add new bookmarks that I need if I had sections throughout that I could edit individually. I can't recall ever seeing a table with separate editable sections, though. If not, could you suggest a better way of doing that page? I use that (rather than my watchlist) to keep all the useful links here that I use frequently (I use the watchlist to monitor RC/Vandalization). Thank you :) ^Ariel♥Gold 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking around for a template that could do this, but I am pretty sure that it is not possible. Even adding level 4 (====) section headings into a table does not produce the normal [edit] link, presumably because the table's layout prevents the existence of an obvious defined section. It would certainly be useful but, I suspect, technically impossible. Adrian M. H. 20:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Darn, lol. Well thanks for letting me know! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Music Schools

Hi Adrian You kindly replied to my cry for help editing categories in Music Schools in the Republic of Ireland. I now have the schools added to the list which has made old info redundant but can't delete it. The original schools with links are included in my new list so all is fair. Apologies for my ignorance. Dig the Kandinsky. Why can I not add tildas? Artydiana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artydiana (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 July 2007

I assume you mean tildes; Shift + # four times, or the signature button in the editing toolbar (javascript permissions required) should work equally well. Nice pic, isn't it; I change them around occasionally. What do you mean by "list"? Do you mean the category, or an actual list (WP has those, too)? Adrian M. H. 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the hash key doesn't work on my laptop but --Artydiana 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) does so thanks for that! There is too steep a learning curve between Tutorial and rest of instructions which are a foreign language to me at the moment. My Music Schools in the Republic of Ireland article on WP is already on page 1 of Google search, warts and all, so I need to learn fast! Got a message bot on previous now redundant article to say it needed Speedy Deletion, but it doesn't tell me how to delete it or whether an administrator does it for you?
My other question is to do with deletion too. Not sure what you mean by an actual list but within the category I have added an ordinary alphabetical list of names of schools and want to delete or ask someone to delete what was previously within that category because I have included it in my list. --Artydiana 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lists and Help:Category for more info, including the differences between them. In Category:Music schools in the Republic of Ireland, you had a list where there shoudl – at most – be a brief one-line description of the use of that category. If you want to retrieve the list and keep it in a sandbox, you can pick it from a previous diff out of the history. I removed it because it does not belong there. I'll cover deletion policy tomorrow; it's 2am here now. Adrian M. H. 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

*yawn* Right, I am now just about awake enough to describe deletion policy! When I checked your contribs, I could not see any article, which means that it must already have been speedied. That page describes the process by which the page was nominated and deleted. If you can remember the exact title, you can check the reason for the deletion by searching for the page; the edit window will have a link to the deletion log. CSD describes the criteria for speedy deletion. We also have Proposed Deletion, which is a softer version that was designed to take some of the strain away from the full-on Articles for Deletion by nominating uncontroversial candidates that do not meet SD, but would be a cert if they went to AFD. Pages of interest include Deletion policy and Why was my page deleted? The See Also section at DP lists all the useful pages. All deletions have to be performed by administrators, who have the extra tools required. That is basically what an admin is; a good, experienced editor who has a few extra tools. Adrian M. H. 11:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on the edits - I feel like an imbecile as I learn this medium - and that after 10 years of post-grad education!

Again thanks for the Makuleke edits - I learned alot!

Profberger 19:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

3O on Sole (foot)

Thanks for the 3O on Sole (foot). That's it!

WLU 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, that will sort it. Adrian M. H. 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thread at EA

Hi, Adrian --

Just a quick note to thank you for your kindness in responding to my posting for help re: creating External Links for our raptor website and thanks for running the test on our URL. You are absolutely correct -- our website is not being systematically blocked (and I should have thought of doing the same thing myself!).

My small staff and I have kicked this around, especially after reading the editor's comments on conflicts of interest, and we have decided to not spend any more time on Wikipedia. To tell you the truth, we were trying to Wikipedia a favor on our dollar, not the other way around, since their equivalent accounts on these species are pretty weak and also contain some inaccuracies. After all, we have already captured our target audience, and we aren't hurting for users. Ironically, other people have been adding links to our website in Wikipedia, so we will just let the world do this stuff for us.

Again, I appreciate your time on this matter!

Best regards,

Lloyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkiff (talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 August 2007

English/Scottish/etc.

You may be interested to know that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) has now been created and there is a discussion taking place on the talk page. Readro 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for letting me know. It appeared on my watchlist when you created it! Let me know if I can help with anything. Adrian M. H. 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

Hi Adrian,

Please forgive my impertinence in refactoring your entry. No harm was intended and no change in meaning was effected, which is in keeping with the purposing of refactoring:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=next&oldid=149414213

Your original entry no doubt unintendedly left the quote hanging out to the left as if someone else had interjected it:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=149402517

I only meant to indent it so as to correct the placement and to make sure no one misunderstood who had made that edit:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=149414213

Sorry to have caused any consternation. Regards, -- Fyslee/talk 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. It's not a big deal. But the format was intentional. Adrian M. H. 08:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CQG Inc.

We are just putting information about the company and its products/services, not promoting it or for that matter trying to. There are other companies in our line of work who have articles similar to ours, we read the policies and were unaware if we did violate them. We are just following examples of other companies and posting an article on this website to inform not promote. CQG Inc. 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"We" creates a potential problem. Namely, conflict of interest. That is an important issue; most of the CORP-related articles on WP were not written by anyone who has any association with the companies in question. When we become aware that such a connection exists, we flag it up and it gets closer scrutiny. COI undermines neutrality and that policy is one of WP's five pillars (ie. extremely important). Additionally, most of these articles (by no means all, but we do what we can to remove them when we find them) meet the minimum basics such as notability (see the Corp link) and verifiability. The content on your user page currently fails that last policy, which would leave it subject to deletion. I recommend that you check the guidelines/policies for notability of corporations, verifiability, neutrality, COI, and reliable sources. I'll be around if you need to get in touch again. Adrian M. H. 18:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And I should add, in the interests of transparency, that any content that you or any editor creates is likely to be edited mercilessly in the spirit of WP's collaborative system. That includes cutting out any biased or unreferenced material or any material that sniffs of advertorial. Adrian M. H. 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember me?

I've been following a few threads, most recently today the biting newcomers issue, and I've been working with DGG, and DESiegel, to create an essay that would help with this problem, as well as the problem that the Template the regulars essay had. At the suggestion of another editor, I've undertaken a project that would help newcomers, and established editors who are new to using template warnings (and it touches on uses of other templates as well) and discourage the "biting" I see regularly. I'd love your input on it if you have some extra time, even if you just have time to comment on the style, layout, etc, or any potentially troubling spots. It is not public, and won't go public until I've gotten enough input from people who are familiar with the issues. Anyway, you were so helpful and kind, I'd love it if you have the time to donate some wisdom here! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ariel! How's it going? I will be happy to scan my eye of over it some time and I will chip in if I have anything worthwhile to add. Regards, Adrian M. H. 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I believe you'll have some valuable input, however deep you choose to delve into it! I'm grateful for any assistance! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

company profiles

are company profiles allowed on WP?

i noticed walmart has a page

if they are, how do i go about creating a new page? was creating it first on my talk the way to go?

if company profiles are not allowed to be created, am i allowed to upload pictures of various tree and truck spades to the existing tree transplanting article?

For example one of dutchman treespades products, the Tree Tyer, most people dont even know exist. How do I put info about such a machine up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchmanindustries (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 August 2007

Please remember to sign your comments. It is mentioned in the new editors' box at the top of this page. As I wrote on your talk page, there are policies and guidelines that govern and guide everyone who edits WP. Some of the most relevant of these were described on your talk page, and it is these that determine whether an article deserves to be here or not. Of course there will be an article about Walmart, just as there is about Microsoft or Sony or any other notable company. There is also quite a lot of crap, to be honest, and we have to deal with that as best we can through cleanup where possible and deletion where necessary. I cannot rule it out, but it is very unlikely that the Microsoft article was written or substantially contributed to by Bill Gates. If he did that, he might introduce the bias that I mentioned (whether intentionally or entirely inadvertently). I would not write about my own company, either. For one thing, it is not notable enough, and if yours is not, then that is something that you may just have to accept. If you decide to take up one of the recommendations that I made earlier, you will need to provide some information about the significant coverage from reliable independent sources that you know about or have found in research. This will help any editor who takes on the task of creating the article or assisting you with the creation. Appropriate use of user space and user talk pages should be taken seriously and if you want to have article content to work on, it needs to go into into a sub-page. See the links at the top of my user page to see how this works. You could just as easily work on it off-line instead, but that limits direct assistance from other editors. Don't forget to read those links on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Hart

Hi Adrian. No need to apologise. As it happens, it wasn't me that made the original changes (which is why I only reverted the year, which I'm absolutely certain of: the other date change may or may not be right, I don't know off-hand), although you have correctly spotted my bad habit of often editing anonymously :) It's sometimes laziness when only making minor changes and and sometimes caution when editing away from home. And, to be fair, sometimes stupidity in forgetting to sign in! Regarding the date, as I said in the edit summary, it's a bit ambiguous anyway. Strictly it should be something like: The Hart engine was last used in 1986. A ban on turbocharging effective from the end of 1988 was announced in 1986? by the FIA; that would be probably rather too much information, and I'm not quite sure whether there's a causal link between the two facts anyway, Hart may just have pulled out because his engine (fantastic though it was for the budget) just wasn't competitive against the factory efforts. Cheers. 4u1e 10:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. I'd love to be able to improve that article (it's a bit brief and not very well referenced at the moment) but as you have probably found, it's difficult to find any really good sources about Brian Hart. Regards, Adrian M. H. 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, I've got loads on the engines (principally in the '1000 BHP Grand Prix cars')....but when I tried a week or so back to pick out stuff on BH, there was actually very little on the man himself, all of which is already in the article! Cheers 4u1e 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

admin

Hello, I've seen some of your contributions around and was wondering if you'd like to consider adminship over at WP:RFA. Granted, it's tough to say if you're ready yet; I think you are, but you might get some opposes for a modest mainspace count. I'd gladly nominate you though if you're interested now or in the near future. Let me know of your decision. Wizardman 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. I would appreciate having the extra tools, but I really do not wish to subject myself to the cliquey admission process and overly picky "country club secretaries". If the system ever changes, my opinion might change with it. Adrian M. H. 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CQG

I understand fully wikipedia doesn't want corporate material to be posted in articles, however if this is truly the case please enlighten me on why six other firms in the same line of work as CQG is all have articles. If you would like a listing of these firms I will be more than happy to provide them. I can even provide examples of non-neutral prose, if you would like. CQG Inc. 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really think that WP does not want articles about businesses, the you have not understood one single word that I have written about this. I have tried to help you and guide you and get you to understand what is and is not good content, but I am just going to have to wash my hands of this. Adrian M. H. 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia" was the message that i directly recieved from an admin following the deletion of my article. I have read the policies and nothing in my previous article conflicted with them. Nothing in any sentences would lead people to believe it was for promotion of the company. CQG Inc. 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a template. I'm not going to waste my precious wiki-time by repeating myself ad nauseum, so if you cannot grasp the concepts at work here, I guess you're just going to have to give up on the idea. Adrian M. H. 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the barnstar! It's always nice to get one, particularly from an editor I respect.--Diniz (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for the compliment. Adrian M. H. 12:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gobbledegook

Was there a reason why you responded to the question with that answer? I ask because I don't see how it's a legitimate answer, and since EA is frequently rendering assistance to editors who might not get the joke, glib responses can seem uncivil. My apologies if I have mischaracterised your post. Anchoress 02:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously missed the edit summary and/or do not have much sense of humour. Lighten up. If you can't chuckle at the complexity of template syntax, you may need a wikibreak. Adrian M. H. 07:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss the edit summary, and if I did others might have also. I have witnessed firsthand many instances of editors who have gone somewhere asking for help feeling bitten by humour they didn't get, and I was trying to make sure that didn't happen. It was entirely good faith, and I think your response, particularly the comments about my sense of humour and status on WP, were unnecessarily personal and uncharitable. Anchoress 07:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And as I wrote on your talk page, they were not meant offensively, even though I found your post to be unnecessary and a bit patronising. I really think you need to relax a bit more and worry less about what other people do or think. Anyone would think that you had never read any of the posts that I make at EA or seen the help that I give to new editors. Adrian M. H. 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

NCH question

Thanks for responding. This has been my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia. Maybe my eyesight or concentration is lapsing. I did get as far as clicking the Upload button after which the 'empty file' response appeared. My intent had been to upload an article (as a file?) about prime numbers etc in the Mathematics/Primes section, having written it, edited it, saved the page, approved the preview and entered the article's title as the source, destination and summary.

What have I not done or done wrong?

Thanks

MIF (Threshold Pilot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threshold Pilot (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 August 2007

I left an HTML comment next to the {{unsigned2}} template at NCH requesting that you use a section heading and sign your comments. You should, in normal circumstances, continue discussions where they begin, but since you came here, I will reply here rather than at NCH. Upload is for uploading images (as an aside, this is not something that new editors should be doing, because they usually fail to license them correctly) and is not related to articles. To create an article, an editor has first to assess the following:

1. Does this subject already have an article or is it already covered in a related article?
2. Is the subject notable enough?
3. Can I verify the material that I wish to use, or is this original research?
4. Can I write this neutrally?
5. Will it be at risk of being unsuitable content?

If you get the right answers to these questions (the guidelines/policies for which are linked above and available on your talk page) then use one of the following techniques:

1. Enter into the Search box the exact title that you intend to use, referring first to naming conventions.
2. Make a wikilink somewhere, such a sandbox or user sub-page, and click on it. Again, the exact title is very important. I find myself making a lot page moves for new users because they did not do this.

The above advice assumes that you already have some satisfactory article content that will not be subject to prompt deletion. If you do not have this, I always recommend working offline or in a user sub-page. As you can see from the links on my user page, I often use the latter method. Adrian M. H. 13:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New user

Hi Adrian

I saw your offer of help to new users and am hoping you can guide me a little.

I have just created the user Marquetteturner (Marquette Turner)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marquetteturner

I cannot, however, find the page when doing a search. Could you please let me know what I've done wrong in the set of Marquette Turner for the profile not to be appearing.

Thanks for your help

Regards, Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquetteturner (talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 August 2007

I see a couple of quite major issues relating to the abuse of guidelines for user page content and account names. User:Marquetteturner has been turned into a redirect to User:Marquette Turner, which is an incorrect use of redirection in the user namespace. Secondly, the content at that page is subject to immediate blanking or deletion for violating the userspace content guidelines. As such, I would normally blank it or PROD it, and since you also have the redirect issue, it needs to be deleted as a non-existent account. As such, I have added a Prod nomination. I will add a welcome template to your talk page and I urge you to take the time to read the pages to which it links before making any further significant edits. Adrian M. H. 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Threshold Pilot on New Contributors' help page

Hi Adrian; I have left a follow-up message on his user talk page. I didn't realise you were still monitoring this - apologies for the repetition! I also got rather confused with the posts there, but I think I have sorted out what's what now... EyeSerene^TALK 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for chipping in. Your input is welcome. Threshold Pilot came to my talk page yesterday, which was probably advantageous, because I was able to give a more detailed reply, but it has gone quiet since then. As an aside, your excellent user page now has the honour of appearing in the list at the bottom of my user page! Adrian M. H. 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's extremely flattering! I'll be smiling all evening now :D

I doubt you remember, but it was you (back in May) who fixed my talk page for me when the welcome template broke and turned the entire page blue - I took your advice and found out a little about wikimarkup... so it's all down to you really! Anyway, it's good to run across you again, and it makes a change that it's not due to me requesting help this time ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, that must be where I know your user name from; I knew it was familiar. Yours wasn't too bad, though; I fixed another talk page around the same time that had gone entirely mustard-coloured for a similar reason! It's nice to know that I inspired you. Adrian M. H. 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)