User talk:Eubulides/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comment?

Hi there, I'd value your input here. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want an uninvolved opinion, I need you to discuss whether or not MastCell's description of the type and scale of the problems caused by this editor are accurate or not. Since you have direct experience of this and are an editor who's opinion I greatly respect, that makes your input very valuable. More generally, administrators' role in Wikipedia is to support people like you - so please tell me if this editor has caused you any significant difficulty. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Now banned permanently from autism and vaccine-related articles and talkpages. If you spot him drop me a note. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

see [1] and [2] I'd want a your opinion for the two studies.--TSP (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gender-selective toxicity of thimerosal

Eubulides,see [3] --TSP (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

fluoridation

Have added some comments about water fluoridation with a couple references. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering about some awkward wording: "...or known safe level of independent of cost and feasibility,..." Is there an extra "of" in there? -- Fyslee (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

False prophets

Interesting times, eh? :) MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Autism Speaks

Does the text really refer to it as a "disease"? [4] Or disorder? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Video Modeling

This method does exist, but the article needs some work and looks right up your alley. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Default network

Thanks for the troubleshooting! --CopperKettle 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lung cancer graph

Thanks, Eubulides. I replied on my talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

Thanks for the heads-up on use of the cite template here. I'm a fairly infrequent editor, so I simply based my usage on how it had been used elsewhere in that section. Jay Schlackman (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear.

I'm sorry - I have trouble with names, and I'm afraid you've just seen one of the consequences of it. One of my friends, Deborah, is, in fact, named Liz, as I learned... two years later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation FAC

Not much time at the moment.

Like you, I don't understand the request for 2 references for "However, little high-quality fluoridation research has been done". It might be different if you had said "Some researchers believe little of the research is of high quality" and cited only one person's opinion. But you are stating that opinion as authoritative, almost as a fact. So the question becomes: does your source have the authority to make such a claim? From your response, I think you believe it does. Better to cite one good source than lots of crappy ones. Many crappy opinions don't become good opinions :-) Colin°^Talk

Homeopathy

I've never commented about Chiropractic, let alone being in a long discussion with you and I see that you don't allow it. I hope you can do the same for Homeopathy. See points on Talk:Homeopathy by Hans Adler-when Homeopaths aren't allowed to post there, that article can't be NPOV. I hope you can have that POV tag there.—Dr.Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.130.219 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This IP is suspected of being an IPsock of the indef banned User:Dr.Jhingaadey

Comments of Auditory Integration Training edits

I notice that you continue to insist on inserting references to AIT in medical terms while it is not a medical intervention, and should point out that by doing so and by repeatedly posting erroneous details as quoted from sources that were mistaken the effect is to have produced a most misleading, irrelevant article on AIT. I see that when there is a difference of view, a discussion is invited to facilitate consensus. Being new to Wikipedia editing I am not sure how to proceed, but would welcome the opportunity to participate in such an attempt to reach an agreement.Jvanr (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I followed up on Talk:Auditory integration training. Eubulides (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That article fails to mention AIT wrt Auditory processing disorder#Treatment (in case you have any sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Before entering further edits Eubulides should have discussion with me or be willing to enter arbitration regarding attempts to maintain misinformation regarding AITJvanr (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to caution by Eubulides

You warn against reverting entries while doing the very same! We need to enter into dispute resolution over this topic. Jvanr (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Having just stumbled onto that page myself, I reviewed your last change there, and I agree with Tim, Sandy and Eubulides that your change has serious problems. The most important of these is that you removed the main finding from a systematic review (PMID 16887860), and replaced with a contrary finding from a website. This is not good science writing. If you want me to invoke some wiki rules, WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS are against your edits. I suggest you give up because a more formal process won't help you in any way. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love

Hi User:Eubuildes,
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love, I am sure you are familiar with, you know Son-Rise, an Early childhood intervention therapy that was created by parents in the '70s that got their son to completely recover from Autism and the spectrum.
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love is a docudrama about the recovery and was adapted by the book, Son-Rise (now known as Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues).
Their is not to many references supporting the movie, the most reliable references for the film is not informative enough or 100% accurate (e.g. New York Times Film Synopsis said that (from All Media Guide) Raun Kaufman was high-functioning (a lot of other sources about the movie says that to), but it is wrong, he was severe and mentally retarded, even in the movie.
Their is more info from the book, which adapted into the film.
Could I reference a lot from the book, and use it as a reliable source since it has the majority of the information from the movie and is more accurate.
Could you also help me with the book, Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues that I haven't created yet.
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

PMID 17891121

Could you send the pdf to me? My email address is my username at gmail. Thanks, Xasodfuih (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

European vs. industrialized according to Pizzo

Have you read my reply here? Xasodfuih (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Southampton and fluoridation

Fluoridation made the news today when Southampton's Primary Care Trust requested the water company to start adding it to the supply. [5]. Expect some more hits. This is appears to be a test case for the rest of England and Wales and is the first development in the UK for 20 years. Colin°^Talk 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluoride in the water - even if you don't want it. That title doesn't look promising. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the Daily Mail. Take their "three in four members of the public... opposed it", for example. According to the BBC, it was "72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the plan". That's still a high level of opposition, but those two statements are not equivalent and we have no idea how the questionnaire was presented. It is interesting to read the water company's statement. They are now obliged to add the fluoride. Colin°^Talk 08:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If that bothers you, then you'd no doubt be driven insane by economic statistics, which report unemployment numbers based on a survey of only 60k for a country with a population of 303 million, and are possibly susceptible to a self-selection bias through excluding cellphones [6]. Compare that to a 10k survey for a city with 1 million. I actually think the coverage is pretty decent -- at least they said what the poll was. II | (t - c) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Luckily for us, those 72% don't edit this wiki, or the article on WF would read like "Well, tooth decay is bad news, but it's hardly the stuff of nightmares. However, fluoride, the medicine he's chosen, may well be." Xasodfuih (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to know if "a small tube of toothpaste theoretically at least contains enough fluoride to kill a small child". At the end of Zac Goldsmith's WP article, it says "I think the British press has got a lot to answer for generally. I take everything I read with pinch of salt and just assume most of what I read isn’t true." Quite. Colin°^Talk 10:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to calculate. My toothpaste has .0024% sodium fluoride. In the 121 grams, that's 290.4 milligrams of sodium fluoride. 45% of that is elemental fluoride, for 130 milligrams of elemental fluoride. Divide that by 16 (a case report says a 3-year old child died from that much per kilogram), and you come up with 8.15 kilograms (18 pounds) - roughly the weight of a small child. II | (t - c) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• A three-year-old should weigh over 14 kg (31 pounds). 18 pounds is the weight of an 11 month baby.[7]
• The three-year-old is mentioned in PMID 7107087 (can't read the paper) but swallowed NaF tablets. I don't know how they compare to toothpaste in terms of absorption. They say the cause of death isn't certain. My guess is you might excrete some of the toothpaste if you swallowed a whole tube, and the sorbitol would help with that.
• I'm not sure about your maths but don't know your brand of toothpaste. Mine has 1450 ppm F. According to the FAQ of Colgate-Duraphat (a 2800 ppm F prescription toothpaste) their toothpaste has 280mg fluoride per 100g paste. They compare this to normal 1100ppm F toothpaste and their industrial strength 5000ppm F toothpaste with 500mg fluoride per 100g paste (starting to see a pattern here). A child toothpaste contains 500 ppm F.
• So a "small tube" of regular "Colgate" would contain 110 mg of F which might (using that case note) be enough to kill a 7 month baby, but not a "small child". Colin°^Talk 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess who's biography I've just improved. Unfortunately nobody criticized him for saying all that. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bread and milk etc

I added a questionable edit to the fluoridation article about milk being fluoridated. I might be wrong and have no ready source here. The gist of my edit is that many modalities of fluoridation have been implemented (in Europe at least) that partially obviate water fluoridation (fluoridated toothpaste also being a mechanism paralleling water fluoridation). My guess is that these alternative modalities have allowed some countries to contract the fluoridation of public water. This point is relevant because the opposition to fluoridation seems to be under the impression that they are winning some sort of campaign, when in fact they acceptance of fluoridation is even stronger but strategies have diversified. My words lack NPOV in some sense, but I am trying to convey my understanding of the political dynamics that are playing out. I recall that bread, milk, and salt had all been fluoridated in various countries. You are welcome to re-edit my comment about milk, though.

On a separate subject, one could mention iodized salt as another example of "governmentally imposed medication." The analogy is apt because iodide is also a halide, like fluoride. And, like fluoridation, the impact of iodination is not immediately obvious since the problem has a long time constant.

Finally, I am very impressed that you have nurtured this article to the FA level - the topic is furiously debated. The heat was dissipated somewhat by the creation of related articles (several!) where the opposition can vent. One of these days, the water fluoridation and the opposition articles need to be reconciled.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first two paragraphs would probably be better placed on the talk page. The fluoridation of salt in other countries should not be exaggerated, since nobody says it's the majority and it quite likely isn't. There doesn't seem to be a clear relationship of fluoridated salt countries having lower rates than completely unfluoridated countries (Scandinavian countries, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark). Neither should the iodized salt thing be played up even if it is mentioned by some ill-informed dentists, because the margin of safety with the iodine in iodized salt (50/1?) is orders of magnitude different than the margin of safety with fluoride (4/1?) -- the Japanese are estimated to consume iodine at way higher levels than the rest of the world, with no observed adverse effects (and in fact lower rates of related diseases). Possibly the iodine they get from seaweed and fish is different, but I've never heard of anything saying that. On the bread fluoridation, I imagine it's just a byproduct of fluoridated salt -- like many other things. Saying that bread is actively "fluoridated" sounds misleading. II | (t - c) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The point about the non-consequences of errors with iodination vs fluoridation are apt. It is interesting however that governments mandate addition of up to three halides to our diets (chlorine not for dietary purposes) but no other elements.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the iodine in salt is mainly iodate, and it is perhaps different, and possibly more toxic, than the iodine in fish and seaweed. But still, PMID 11396703, a review, notes that that "ocular toxicity in humans has occurred only after exposure to doses of 600 to 1,200 mg per individual". For comparison, the US RDA is 150 micrograms, and Americans consume about a hundred more micrograms than that [8]. There's perhaps more concern about inadequate than toxic doses of iodine. To be fair about the unfluoridated countries, Scandinavian countries are known for their use of cariostatic sugars like xylitol, and Pizzo mentions that Italy has a fair amount of naturally fluoridated water. II | (t - c) 23:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Autism

Could you help me add more media for the template—Template:Autism.
I already added Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love.
As well as a people section.
I want to improve it more like the Template:Topics related to Tourrette syndrome.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Hi Eubulides. Yes, I've got this one watchlisted. I'll look through after a bit of re-looking on an article I've got up at FAC - Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the note - The edits got lost in my overly-long watchlist. Rereading now and will strike/recomment later today (my time). Peripitus (Talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC failed

I see the article hasn't been promoted. Oh, well. I encourage you renominate it since most of the concerns of the opposition had been addressed; presumably the FAC director didn't feel like reading through all that to figure it out. I for one felt a bit burned out of reading papers about WF, so I reduced my involvement. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't get a chance to return to this one before it got archived. Sorry. Got to Meningitis in time. Let me know when you plan to resubmit and I'll look again. Tough subject this one, but then Autism is no walk in the park. Colin°^Talk 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed unfortunate that it didn't pass, and I'm sorry I didn't bother to vote. Definitely has my support if it comes up again. II | (t - c) 06:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Conditions of the mucous membranes

I am working on dermatology content on wikipedia, and through my work have developed a list of roughly 25 conditions of the mucous membranes that need stubs created. I noticed your work with regard to oral pathology, and wanted to know if you would help me create these articles? kilbad (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. It figures the one time in a hundred I try to make a humorous, non-standard vandalism warning is the time the guy just can't give up. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

High fructose corn syrup

In the part about mercury contamination, what was the parts per million supposed to be?Thanks, Rich (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Asperger image

Merely adding another non-free image of Asperger when the old one is deleted is not only counter-productive, it is bordering on disruptive. The consensus that a non-free image was not justified was clear, and this one is not being used in a different way. If you believe that there was something wrong with the discussion, take it to deletion review. If you believe that the consensus to include an image now exists for whatever reason, take it to the article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep the discussion concise? No one is going to bother responding to the request for third opinion when we have such long posts. Basically, all I'm asking is for an explanation of why the research method needs to be illustrated. To justify the use of a non-free image, it must be imperative that the matter is illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fake ATCT website?

A user named User:MarkPhilips has created links to a website at www.atcoftexas.com which I have reverted. It seems to be an attempt to spoof the website of the actual Autism Treatment Center, which is at [9]. I have reported him on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist but I am not sure if they will take action against a website that has only been added by one user, even if it is obviously useless; they may recommend to just watch that user, which is what I am planning to start doing now. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

listas

There is a category of biography articles without "listas" - this is meant to be used to patrol, clearly nearly all biography articles need a listas, adding it to those which strictly speaking could do without (maybe 2%) will help make maintenance feasible. Rich Farmbrough, 00:45 19 March 2009 (UTC).

What to do with article - Vaccine interference

I have been trying to figure out how to deal with the article Vaccine interference. It is a one paragraph stub about a phenonmenon in vaccine formulation. I am not sure whether the topic merits an entire article, and suspect that it might be best dealt with by merging it into some other article, but I haven't come up with a good place for it. Since you have edited the vaccine articles a fair amount, thought you might have a suggestion of either how to deal with the article (at least someplace where we could introduce a couple of links to it, if not merging it into something), or have ideas where else would be worth posing the question. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on and dealing with it. I was going to do when I got a round toit, thanks for getting there first. Zodon (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

TS articles

Got hold of full text on all the articles, will start reading through them tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction, I have everything except Bloch PMID 18627671, in case you're able to get that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have more free time this coming week than I had last week ... will get through those articles this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that all of New Haven is under construction, and my GPS finally popped a circuit breaker and I gave up trying to get to the Child Study Center; will work on getting the Bloch paper via Plan B. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My GPS didn't *really* pop a circuit breaker: I did because some ding-bat told me they were on North Frontage Rd, and it turns out it's actually on S. Frontage Rd. All in all, it would be best to do it right, call Jim Leckman and arrange to have lunch anyway ... I'll see what I can do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I just saw your comment to User talk:Sambot and have fixed the bug you found. Many thanks for spotting it! Best wishes, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mushrooms and cancer

In the future, lets work together on the Agaricus bisporus page. Feel free to write me whenever... Jatlas (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy and overlinking

I just saw your removal of many links at Homeopathy, citing overlinking. I am not sure I agree with that, but perhaps you can convince me. I think that citations in footnotes are a special, technical part of the article that is not really covered by WP:OVERLINKING. As a result of your edit, a reader who is specifically interested in reference number 162 is very unlikely to find out that Wikipedia has an article on the author (linked from reference number 5), and therefore unlikely to find out that Edzard Ernst is the first and only UK Professor of Complementary Medicine. Can you point me to any earlier consensus on related questions? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Empathy/Archive 1#Merger_proposal

Did you ever come across mind-blindness outside Baron-Cohen's work? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is empathy the best merge target ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Autism therapies

Hola,

I would have preferred ordering them according to most-to-least proven, but that'd probably be too difficult. But I'm OK with leaving it as is and removing floortime completely. Though as a therapist I'd heard of floortime, is it not worth including at all? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Thus proving once again that my intentions often over-reach my attention and abilities. Thanks Eub, I've no problem with your edits, as usual. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images

I'm sorry my interpretation of the FU policy disagrees with yours. It is not often we disagree. I used to be a regular at FLC and remember the fireball of frustration and anger when the WP community went for a more restrictive policy against lists having loads of "FU" pictures. Discographies and TV episode lists were shorn of their identifying/decorative images (depending on which side you took).

If you want another opinion, Awadewit (talk · contribs) reviews the images at FAC, so she might be able to help or know someone who can. I have no idea what her opinion would be. Colin°^Talk 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, please have a look at User_talk:Elcobbola#Asperger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, under current policy Image:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg has to go due to no copyright information. That this means nearly all non-free images should be immediately sent for AfD doesn't seem to be bothering many people. The whole copyright area on WP is policed by uninformed self-appointed busybodies IMO. I'm all for being strict, and have little sympathy for folk who wish to break or bend the law in this area, but I'd much rather WP had lawyer-backed opinions on this rather than the consensus-of-guesswork we have currently. I think the case for a non-free image at Asperger syndrome is not strong. Of course the article would benefit from it, but the same can be said for much of WP, where we lack the funds to license a decent picture.

You say Image:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg had copyright information. I didn't get to see that one before it was deleted. If you think you can fully meet all 10 of the FU criteria with that picture, then I suggest it be re-uploaded and used as a replacement only on the Hans Asperger page, where WP:NFCC #8 is clearly satisfied (which was the criterion it was deleted under when used elsewhere). The other images would then be deleted. Before doing this, you should contact Nv8200p (talk · contribs) (the deletion-closing-admin) to check he is happy with this otherwise someone might speedy delete it as "as a recreation of deleted material". Nv8200p may also advise you on whether and to what extent your scan of the image needs to be quality-reduced from the original. If the JPEG you uploaded is fine as it was, I think Nv8200p can undelete it which might be preferable to re-uploading.

Cheers, Colin°^Talk 09:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi question if you don't mind

I noticed that you deleted the hyperbaric photo and comments in the Crohn's disease article. Looking at the contributions of this editor here you will see that the editor is putting it in a lot of articles. I reverted the one on the Stroke article because of no citations but didn't on the Lyme disease article because it did have refs. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this since your are more knowledgeable about this kind of thing then I am. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, I just noticed you have been doing some of the clean up about this, thanks. You do medical articles a lot. Would it be too much to ask of you to do a read of the Crohn's disease article and see if you could improve it? It has improved a lot during my time here with a little bit of editing from me. I try to watch it mostly though for vandalism because of my strong POV about the subject. When I have edited it, I ask for other editors opinions about what I did to keep me NPOV. I would love to see it get to FA but to be honest I am not the person to do it. I would love your opinion or better yet your edits to improve the article which I know needs work. Thanks for listening and if you don't have time or don't have interest that's ok too. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake

Heh, the image in your message threw me, I assumed it was XLinkbot upto his usual shenanegans. I've left another message to the user to clarify. Again, sorry about that. – Toon^(talk) 23:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Asperger image 2

I replaced the empty image of Asperger in the infobox on Hans Asperger with a placeholder to keep it in line with other psychiatrist's articles where there is no uncopyrighted picture available to use. If this were an article about a less famous person, I would recommend deleting the infobox as it provided no useful information not already in the header and mostly just served to display the image, but I am not well in tune with the standards followed by articles for well-known people such as Asperger. I will watchlist the page now to keep on top of anything new that happens. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The gist of the placeholder image polioy is: use a placeholder image if there is a reasonable chance than an uncopyrighted or NFCC-compliant image can likely be found in the future; or have no image if not. Again, I have no opinion about this whole mess because as much as I've tried to understand the complex rules regarding what images are OK and what images aren't on Wikipedia and Commons I can never really be sure of myself. I'll do what you think is best. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pontiac Firebird

Thank you for your feedback. In many of the reverted edits I did (I realize I did too many) I was not adding text rather picture of what the text was describing as entered by another user. Is it alright if someone has an article on a Pontiac Firebird to had a picture of that car?

I thank you again for your input.

Mckeeman (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Mckeeman

Autism and Unsourced Edits

Well, we at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire put gender bias into Autism, considering the facts that autistic girls or women are treated differently than the autistic males. Autism is part of our class project and very focus at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Recognizing the fact school related IPs are sometimes used to vandalize, how must whosoever uses the College IP avoid vandalism? 12.227.185.235 (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Eubulides

Sorry about that, Eubulides. Thanks for informing us. Please guide us about finding real Wikipedia sources and that way, Autism will be a better and a proper article. We are looking at WP:MEDRS now, so that official sources can be cited. We students attending UWEC got alarmed when the notice began popping up saying that www.autism-education.suite101.com had been blacklisted. We will not use that web area again for sources around the Wikipedia. We promise to retrieve autism information that is better trusted and reliable. 12.227.185.235 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder

Does this really need an endash? The majority of non-Wikipedia sources either use a normal dash ("-") or nothing at all. Perhaps even a move to plain old "obsessive compulsive disorder" is needed? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me! I only mentioned it on the talk page as an issue to raise. Personally I think it's not too important how we do it. As long as he have some sort of consistency through articles (e.g. Obsessive-compulsive disorder is currently located at the article space without the endash, even though the article begins this way). Good luck with sorting things out. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Neurotypical

• I have reverted your cut/paste move of my section as it seemed that this did not fully respect my authorship, per the WP:GFDL, and I feel that the location of this material requires some discussion. The Neurotypical article seems lacking in content and the material I added seems relevant there in that it touches on the essential ways in which people may be neurotypical or not or may change between such states. I shall be sleeping soon and working tomorrow so may not be able to follow this up immediately but shall be watching these articles now. As background, note that there's an AFD which touches on this - Neurotypicalism - and this coincided with a series of related articles which I used as a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion request

Because of the currrent worries about swine flu, I'd appreciate your opinion on an edit. The paragraph below was deleted by an editor from Swine flu#Background with the comment, "removed wrong info about swine flu being "descendant" of 1918 Spanish flu. Too important now to spread this wrong info." I've written the editor questioning any other reasons for his removal besides factual, since all the facts stated are from valid sources (I even have more recent sources that aren't listed.) Assuming that all the facts are correct, does this paragraph seem problematic for any reason? I haven't received a response from the editor but still hesitate in restoring this because of the sensitivity of the topic. Your comments would be appreciated. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The swine flu is a descendant of the infamous "Spanish flu" that caused a devastating pandemic in humans in 1918-1919. In less than a year, that pandemic killed more than 500,000 Americans and some 20 million people worldwide - the greatest number ever killed in so short a period by any natural or man-made catastrophe. It also killed and sickened large numbers of hogs. Within a decade, the disease stopped circulating among humans, but it has infected swine ever since. Although hogs had initially caught the virus from humans, it has undergone slight changes over the years, emerging occasionally to infect individuals who work closely with pigs. However, there have only been 12 cases in the U.S. since 2005 in which humans caught swine flu after being in contact with pigs and there is currently no requirement that pigs be vaccinated against swine flu.

(note: the bold sentence was not deleted)

Nice edit. Thanks for reviewing and changing.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New autism study

Does this tell us anything that isnt already in the autism articles? --- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Prayer rug

Can we forcibly sysop you? Joking, of course, but seriously I am regularly impressed by the effort and skill you bring to this project. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Already tried it. Eubulides declined on the grounds that being an admin didn't look very enjoyable. Where could he have gotten that idea? :) MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not the foggiest. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bug in welcome template's use of REVISIONUSER

 Chzz  ►  08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You removed the section on the history of cigar

3 months is a short time for a fact tag to last. And my comment on the talk page was not that there was any doubt that Mayan's smoked cigars - in fact, the word itself probably comes from Mayan, see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cigar - but just laughing at the idea that their cigars were somehow more "primitive" than a product which is still generally made by hand to this day. While matters of taste and presentation may have changed, there can be little doubt that Mayans were capable of making a high-quality cigar, and in fact really nothing about the post-classic Mayan culture (the time perios in question) fits the definition of "primitive". Homunq (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You already commented in Talk:Cigar. Let's discuss there. Homunq (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Generation Rescue

I want to know what you think of this edit. I've been more or less holding down any edits to that article that look likely to be from Generation Rescue itself, but this one is a previously uninvolved editor who made just a minor change to a sentence whose source goes to an article I dont have access to. Hopefully you can offer an opinion. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Just noting I've left a message on your Commons talk page. Cheers :) Orderinchaos 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Autism therapies

Dear User:Eubuildes,
Floortime/ DIR is deleted from Autism therapies, but that dosn't make sense since it is a therapy—a very known one actually.
I would suggest adding it back as it is important to list it, just as any other Early intervention therapy.
ATC ^{. Talk} 21:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Autism

Watch this video, it is interesting. [10]

With this new therapy you can cure the autism definitively? You can lose the diagnosis and the symptons definitively ? --green island (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thomas the Tank Engine

I can't recall in what article this was raised, but I do seem to recall it being based on an unscientific NAS report, unclear if this media report is just parroting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, NAS, "the exclusive charity partner of Thomas and Friends" (that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas the tank engine and autism). The Australian group's recent press release announcing a partnership with the Thomas guys evidences the same issues: "We also look forward to releasing the Australian survey findings about the important role Thomas & Friends plays in the early learning and development of children with autism". Maralia (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm slipping :) Maralia, you don't miss a thing!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It was fresh in my memory because it's the only redlink I still keep on my watchlist. Fake science for marketing purposes really gets my goat. Maralia (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the book "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies. Create a survey to produce a story to create news to get publicity... It really don't matter if it is rubbish, the press don't have the time to check so just lap it up and regurgitate it. Colin°^Talk 18:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this in reference to Thomas and Friends #Popularity with autistic audience? If so, I see the point: that section is alarmingly POV in favor of the Thomas-for-autism theory. I'll see if I can find a bit of time to clean that up. Eubulides (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No science there, but expect resistance :) It's so unfortunate that so few (desperate) consumers understand how useless that information is, and how to sort good from bad science. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PS, a good example of the problems with the popular media here for MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus sought

There is a new consensus question posted at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if available, your comments would be greatly appreciated! ---kilbad (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Neuroconstructivism

Thanks for asking. i have not redone this essay. unfortunately, its looking like i might not get to it (its not really my area of expertise anyway). feel free to work on it. if i do return to it ill check with you first. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Congratulations! Colin°^Talk 23:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please consider getting involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tobacco

You seem to have an interest in the topic, and I think it is broad enough to merit a Wikiproject. Let me know if you're interested, and perhaps if you know anyone else who would be. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Laugh

Yes, I shoulda fixed that one :) Was in a hurry to undo the other things! [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Writer

I noticed your comment at Template talk:Infobox Writer. If you are asking an admin to edit the template, I think you need to put {{editprotected}} just under the heading. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Osteosarcoma

Just wanted to say that I saw your recent work at Osteosarcoma#Causes, and I really appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the sources wording and plagiarism

Hey Eubulides, this is a courtesy notice that I mentioned you at an ANI thread (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ChildOfMidnight) in a not exactly flattering light (sorry) over the use of wording which closely matches the source and original research accusations when the the editors' summarization wording diverges. Hope you don't take it personally. II | (t - c) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Clark1974.svg

It looks great in both Firefox and the common versions of IE. Thank you again. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions nominated as featured list candidate

I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

teaser

Your comment is rather mysterious. Can you expand on the nature of the "POV", as you see it? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You might both be interested in this discussion. Hans Adler 17:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hans, that's very interesting! It appears that CZ can learn from WP. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity FAC

Thanks again for all your constructive criticism and editorial assistance on Oxygen toxicity. I can see you are busy, but can I give you a gentle nudge to look again at the article and my responses at Talk:Oxygen toxicity, when you have time, please? --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

More thanks for all the time you spent on the citations today. I do have a few issues that I've enumerated at Talk:Oxygen toxicity#Citation format issues. Looking at them now, I must seem very ungrateful, which is far from the truth. I really do appreciate the help you've given. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted the consolidation of refs to Donald. Did you change your mind about the discussion on Materialscientist's comments in WP:Featured article candidates/Oxygen toxicity/archive1? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Both Gene and I can see the full text by following the link at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2004/00000075/00000011/art00011 - discussion on my talk page. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I found another problem: {{cite manual}} doesn't support the |ref= parameter, so the {{harvnb}} links in "References" for USN Dive Manual don't work. I've made a workaround using {{cite book}} and replacing |version= with |series= but it's less than ideal. As you are much more familiar with templates, do you know if it's possible to get the {{cite manual}} template fixed, so it supports the |ref= parameter and we could then use the proper template for the cite?

Thanks for fixing that. I've had a look at the code of the template and I can see what needed to be done, so it's something I'll be able to fix myself in future. I've updated the documentation for the template to reflect the change. --RexxS (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Woodstock

Has the photo that you added to Woodstock been used commonly? I've never seen it before, so I'm curious :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Second look

Would you mind doing a second run through of the list of skin-related conditions to make sure I have correctly used the different types of dashes? I think I have fixed most/all of them, but would appreciate another check by you. Regardless, thanks again for your help! ---kilbad (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I also replied to you on the list's talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bosworth Field: alt for images

Hi, thank you for adding alt text to the lead image for this article. I had missed it as I was looking for an "alt" parameter in the Infobox ("too intent on looking for a rabbit, the hawk failed to spot the mouse in the field"). The other images do have alt text. However, those using the {{multiple image}} template cannot use alt text, an issue which I have previously raised at Template talk:Multiple image/Archive 1#ALT text but never got any resolution. Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. I just found out a way to give alt text for the {{multiple image}}; however, the pop-up tooltip still yields a {{{box_caption}}} text. If it is not much of a bother, could you run through my alt texts in the article and refine them? I fear that I may have been a bit explicit (long) in them. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Thanks for your detailed explanation at the skin conditions FLC, as well at FAC, about the importance of alt text. I've gone down the FLC list, calling for the addition of alt text, for which I'll probably get a few puzzled or annoyed looks. I tried my hand and adding some, and it's harder than it looks! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients

Thanks for adding the alt text to the Medal of Honor recipients list. I added it to the Iwo Jima list also. I wanted to give you a heads up that I intend to modify your comment slightly from "shows a guy" or the like to "shows [name of the individual]" to be a bit more descriptive. I also left another comment on the alt text comment regarding describing military ribbons, medals and ranks ( and as I think about it I should have mentioned unit patches and insignia as well). Since some of these ribbons, etc are displayed on hundreds or thousands of pages the alt text should be consistant. I am going to use AWB to do some as in the case of the Medal of Honor image that commonly accompany portraits in MOH recipient infoboxes. Please let me know what you think.--Kumioko (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ALT and Template:Annotated image

Instances of Template:Annotated image such as Template:Annotated image/Extinction‎ do not need their own ALT text support , they will get it from the parent Template:Annotated image template. -Philcha (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cutaneous conditions

I have been working to improve the alt text found in the list of cutaneous conditions, and have expanded the alt tags for a little over half of the images. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would be willing to review the alt tags I have worked on, and help me finish with the rest? Regardless, thank you for your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have finished adding all the alt tags. How do they look now? ---kilbad (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

It has been a pleasure working with you this past week or so on that FL nomination. Would you ever consider joining the dermatology task force? There are a couple of goals we could definitely use some help with. Regardless, thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox artist discography

Do you know how to add alt text to a picture in an infobox? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Excuse me butting in:) Yes, you can now use an |Alt= parameter. I modified the template, but I can't guarantee it won't be reverted. Did you want alt text for the logo if it's used instead? --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. To your question, yes, if you can do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can do it, but looking a little deeper, I've noticed discussion at the talk page for the template about logos. At present, the template is set to use the |Artist= parameter as the alt text for a logo, which seems to be what we would set it to anyway (a screen-reader should probably translate a logo as the artist's name - even for Prince). I've asked the question on the template talk page, so if you think that alt text (other than the artist's name) should be available, perhaps it ought to be discussed there? --RexxS (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I don't think it's a big deal, and doesn't need to be addressed unless the need arises. Thanks for your help. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text request

Hi there,

I have it on the highest authority that you were the harbinger of doom led the push to make alt text a guideline (and requirement for FAC!). If it's not too much trouble, could you have a look at linezolid and review my rather feeble attempts at adding alt text for the article's images? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I was very impressed by your source review of Benzodiazepine during FAC; it "inspired" me to pay closer attention to WP:MEDRS (stick to reviews, RCTs, and clinical guidelines whenever possible; qualify low-quality evidence when used in the text, etc.) If you have any suggestions in this area, I would greatly appreciate them as well :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC

About this, please check the history and see that I haven't touched the images. As you can see, I would rather not fight over it, so it is out of my control. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I preferred the black and white image, but I'm tired of fights about images. Regardless, because of the NPG controversy the images might be removed from public domain status. Someone already tagged them with the NPG legal challenge. Frustrating. Perhaps they need a free-use rationale. I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm more worried about controversies with other users than the BNG. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PANDAS

Eubulides, Tim Vickers is currently at work over there; would you have time to read the latest entries on talk, and keep an eye on it as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent work there ! When a misleading article affects children's health, it matters !! Would you have the time to add alt text to the images on Tourette syndrome, since you're the expert? Thanks for all you do, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

alt text

Thanks for the alt text addition. J. D. Redding 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Hi Eubulides - I've got Charles Stewart (Canadian politician) up at FAC right now and, while I have added alt text to the images, I don't think I did an especially good job of it. If you have a chance, could you look it over and maybe make some improvements, so as to show me how it's done for the dozens and dozens of FAs I shall no doubt write in the future? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film

Hello, I was wondering if you could clarify at Template talk:Infobox film why alternate text is needed for the identifying image in the infobox? I'm not clear what extensive the expectations for the text are since the image is disjointed from the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I responded there. Eubulides (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

alt text for flag templates

Hello Eubulides, I'm glad you are looking at flag templates with respect to accessibility! I'd like your opinion on some specific examples. Once the link= addition was made to MediaWiki image syntax, I used it for {{flagicon}} so that the icon links to a more useful page than the image page itself. My rationale is that flagicon should be used for standalone icons—implying that there should be some useful link for the image—with {{flag}} used for icons attached to wikilinks. (And for this reason, I often replace constructs like {{flagicon|Country}} [[Country]] with {{flag|Country}} in my editing.) But with your experience with alt attributes, screen readers, etc., is that also a problem? Similarly, we have a set of templates for national sports teams (e.g. {{fb|Brazil}} → Brazil). You'll see that the wikilink points to Brazil national football team, but the icon links to Brazil. That gives the "normal" reader two useful links, but is that a problem for accessibility? Should the link be turned off for all flagicon templates? Thanks for your thoughts — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Senedd

Thank you for your edit you made to the article. Seth Whales (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Could you confirm which version (Template talk:Infobox officeholder) you want installed? I noticed that there were some edits after the initial proposed edit. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for Template talk:Infobox settlement. I just want to make sure we get it right. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the request wasn't clear in Template talk:Infobox officeholder #Alt text. I tried to fix things by striking out the obsolete version of the proposed patch, and reformatting the current version for clarity. Eubulides (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As for Template talk:Infobox settlement #Add support for alt text, I did not examine Locos epraix's further changes in detail and am not proposing them. All I verified was that his changes did not lose my changes. It's fine with me if you install either version, though I expect you'll want to verify Locos epraix's changes yourself (since Locos epraix has not officially requested them). Eubulides (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done × 2, but I did not merge Locos epraix's changes as it was not clear what it was meant to accomplish. Let me know if I made any mistakes. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

ALT in Ring in 48

Is it needed when the caption already explains what each of the lines mean anyway? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy poems and alt text

Thanks so much for improving the alt text at The Lucy poems. I do want to ask about the removal of all details concerning the media - I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. These details help provide keys to the art underlying the image. I guess I'm confused about why it is unimportant that an image is a photograph, painting, or drawing. These details are crucial to visualizing the image, in my view, but perhaps I don't really understand the function of alt text. If you could explain, I would appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text check

Hello. I was told you are an expert in alternative text, so I was wondering if you could take a look at List of Olympic medalists in figure skating, currently under FLC review, and see if my effort in introducing alternative text for the list's images paid off or not. I've never did this and, having read WP:ALT, it doesn't seem an easy task to drift away from caption duplication. Thanks in advance. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank YOU very much, for taking the time to help. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

List of national parks of Sweden

Hey Eubulides, can you take a look at the discussion here and provide me with an example alt text for one of the images in the article? Thanks, Theleftorium 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That you for you corrections. I'll try to get the other ones done and then I'll get back to you. :) Theleftorium 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Timeline of Macintosh models/archive1

There's a discussion over whether the pictures used in the above article are decorative; could you clarify whether this is true? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text stuff

Hi. I'm a bit confused at your comments here. Could you please clarify if you get a chance? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama FAC3

I am glad to have resolved your WP:ALT text issues. Do you have other concerns or considerations? Have you thought about formally supporting the article's FAC candidacy?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you comment at WP:FAR, WP:GAR. You also might want to talk to the people that run the automated peer review and ask the bot to tell people to add alt text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The GAR workflow is not that high. At most 10 articles a month I believe. You might be able to add that too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Do you approve the WP:ALT at Barack Obama?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama Alt text

Please check the Michelle Obama WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club

Hello, regarding alternative text at Fight Club (film), an editor said that alternative text for the poster image was cutting off. Is there a word limit for the alternative text, particularly within the infobox? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revision! Did you see the same problem as Giants2008, and is it fixed now? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text and the main page

You might want to keep tabs on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, reminding nominators to add alt text to the images accompanying the blurbs. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you comment here on how to improve the alt text? You're much better at explaining it than I am. Thanks for everything you've done; I admire your ability to stay calm and not get frustrated with all the explaining/fixing you've had to do over this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Howie Morenz FAC

Thanks for giving the comment on the nomination. I was unaware of WP:ALT until you brought it up, so the images on Howie Morenz were my first attempts at creating alt-text. My biggest concern though is that since most of the images involved describing an ice hockey player, it may need a more thorough description. I'd like to know what you think that would be necessary, or any other comments regarding the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks for taking the time to go over the article. I made the changes you suggested, though the lead/infobox image may still need some work. Because its imbedded in the infobox, I tried something that should work. Hopefully it works out. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maps

Yes, I think a map or two in the example list would be good ... maybe a painting too and/or a coin/seal. Would help me anyway. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics FAR ALT

The flag seems to be transcluded through some recrusive template. Can you sort that out for me? thanks YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sensory integration therapy

Hola,

Were you aware of this article? Needs some TLC, thought you might be interested. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my. Just isn't enough time anymore. Just saw the mess at scrupulosity (following up on all those latest OCD editors and changes), and I just don't have time anymore to work on these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text work

Mmm, universal access

Thank you for doing so much work to make the alt text thing happen smoothly and effectively. I admit that at first I thought: "This is so much work for something which most people will never even interact with." But it's obviously an important step for us to take as a resource used by many people using many different readers. So cheers to you — have a donut. Scartol • Tok 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

When ? (I have never been able to figure out a move over redirect.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

En dash

I ran into trouble at Obsessive–compulsive spectrum, partially because I didn't realize that the dash my computer produces when I hit the dash key is a hyphen, not an en dash. Is this normal? What are alternate ways that one can produce an en dash? Thanks; Whatever404 (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of districts of Sri Lanka/archive1

I'm not sure how one would go about adding good alt text to all the maps; suggestions? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station alt texts.

Hi there, I'd just like to ask you for your opinion on how the ISS alt texts are coming along; I think I've got some for all the images except those in the modules table (which are pending) and the .ogg (for which I have no idea what to write). How do you think it's looking? Colds7ream (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Front page CNN

Hi, Eubulides! Brad Cohen and TS were on CNN's main page this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/27/tourette.camp/index.html

Do you have Cohen watchlisted? I'm going to be out most of today and tomorrow, so I was hoping to interest you in keeping an eye on the articles. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(And I can't find that tool that checks hits on those pages ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to add it to your user page, Sandy ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fv! Will do when/if I get a free moment ... unless someone else does it for me first :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow ! [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Proofs involving the totient function

It keeps on being reset to the inferior version, what to do? Zahlentheorie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.153.82 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

FLC

I've made some changes to List of districts of Sri Lanka as you suggested here. I believe that issue has been addressed now, but there's a new problem. I'd appreciate it if you could give your views on that. ≈ Chamal ^talk 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1977 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

Hey, if you get a chance, could you assist the nominator of this FLC with the alt text issues? Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Canadian Federation of Chiropractic Regulatory and Educational Accrediting Boards

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Canadian Federation of Chiropractic Regulatory and Educational Accrediting Boards. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Federation of Chiropractic Regulatory and Educational Accrediting Boards. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Clickable picture

Hi, I understand your point that purely decorative images don't need to be clickable. On WP:ALT, they give the example of an icon, which indeed doesn't have to be clickable. However, in the case of the California Seal, personally I wanted to see the details of it but couldn't click on it, so I had to open the page in edit mode, copy the name of the picture and go look for it on Commons. That's a lot of efforts just to be able to view a picture. In general, should we really decide for the readers whether they should or shouldn't be able to click on pictures? What proof do we have that usabiliy is actually improved (and not the opposite) by doing so? Laurent (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rain Before It Falls

I was just reading a review of this a few hours ago and was pleasantly reminded of WP:ALT :) Curious as to whether you've read it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the pointer. I guess we'll have to craft alt text carefully for any images we add to that article . Eubulides (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text for a map?

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations/archive1. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for all the help you have been providing around FAC and FAR for adding alt text to images. Your examples have been illustrative and you have been patient with editors struggling to learn something new. Wikipedia is better as a result of your efforts! Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

HMS Endeavour alt texts

Thanks for your help with alt texts for HMS Endeavour at its FAC. Just FYI, since your comments I've replaced two of the images in the article - the lead image in the infobox and the one associated with the shipwreck. I think I've got the new alt texts right but thought I'd let you know as the replacements and their alt text descriptions were added since your review. Euryalus (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the tip. Euryalus (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

alt= template bug

Hello, it seems you were the last to Template:Infobox Organization and there now seems to be a bug with it where the text "alt=" shows up below the picture and above the rest of the info in many of the pages using this template. I don't know enough about wiki coding to tell if your edit caused this or not but I hope you will will look into the issue and be able to correct it. Check the what links here page on that template to find examples such as American Civil Liberties Union, Association for Computing Machinery, and Community Emergency Response Team. Maybe it has something to do with these pages not specifying any alt option for the infobox transclusion. Cheers. 216.68.56.218 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

--bug fixed, but have I found another?--

Hi again, thanks for the very quick work in fixing the bug, but it looks like I may be seeing another now. For some reason I'm not seeing the alt text you put in Association for Computing Machinery when mousing over the logo. The HTML when I view page source looks like this: <img alt=""acm" in blue circle with gray rim, surrounded by blue diamond" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/ACM_4C_vector_80.png" width="80" height="80" /> I don'te see any obvious problems with the way that img tag is being composed but nonetheless, I see "ACM_4C_vector_80.png" when hovering the mouse over the picture instead of the descriptive text you added. I've checked with IE 6 and Chrome 2.0 so I'm not sure what is going on there. 216.68.56.218 (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Useful explanations of alt text

Hi Eubulides. I've just quickly read through your additions to WT:FAC regarding the necessity for good alt text, I found it an interesting and useful read. Would you be kind enough to bundle it up and post it over at WT:FLC as we're now doing our best over there to implement alt text per WP:ALT and your insights may very well be useful and answer questions which are crossing our contributor's minds! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. I think the thing that needs addressing foremost is "when" to use alt text and some good examples of what constitutes "good" alt text with reference to some practical examples. I think we're all capable of reading WP:ALT but there's a huge problem with getting to grips with how "useful" the text can be (as you noted with the Kant example). We, from time to time, have a large number of images in any given list, most commonly they'll be headshots of the people discussed in the list. I think a number of people need convincing the alt text is useful and then how best to phrase it up. Also, the "when" to use it comes into play a lot when we embed our images into lists with text alongside, but not necessarily caption text. Just thinking out loud really, but anything you could provide at WT:FLC would be fabulous. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text in FAs

Hi Eubulides, I want to drop you this note to stress that I'm not trying to undermine the work you do with alt text, because obviously the intention of it is to help people. My concern is only that we already have so much we're expected to do, style-wise, for FA, to the point where it really discourages people from writing them. I think people underestimate how much time it would take to add good alt text to an article with a lot of images. It would be quite a bit of extra work, and I feel it's unfair to force that on FA writers. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the bones of contention here is the length of time it might typically take to add good alt text to images for FA. Some of the people in favor of doing it have argued that it's a minor thing, and why on earth would we not be willing to do if it helps people. Some of the ones against are arguing (a) that it could take a lot longer to do that is supposed, and (b) that the resulting text would not be that helpful.

Therefore, I wondered if we could conduct an experiment. We could agree a time where you're available to add alt text. I will pick an article to add it to, and as soon as you have the title, you start doing it, so we can time it. When you've finished, we can ask a visually impaired editor how helpful the additions were. In that way we'll be able to judge how much input we're talking about for how much gain. The only thing is that you would have to do it all at one sitting, because otherwise we couldn't know for sure how long it had taken you, so you'd have to name a time where you could work on it uninterrupted. Are you willing to give it a try? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this sounds to me more like a fishing expedition to gather ammunition against alt text rather than a real experiment.
• If it is an experiment, then there needs to be an experimental hypothesis, something like "the cost-benefit ratio of requiring alt text is greater than the cost-benefit ratios of the other FA requirements". If that's the hypothesis, then how will these cost-benefit ratios be measured? And if that's not the hypothesis, then what is the hypothesis?
• The proposed procedure wouldn't be very accurate, as it doesn't take that long to write alt text, and the overhead in sending messages back and forth will swamp the time it takes to write alt text.
• To try to short-circuit all this, I just now added alt text to all the images in Augusta, Lady Gregory, an article currently undergoing FAR. The process took approximately 6 minutes and 30 seconds, starting from the time the article was visible in my browser and finishing with the time that I hit the "Save" button. I did this on an old (circa 2003) personal computer, which slowed the process down somewhat due to waiting for my browser to refresh the screen. I used Firefox 1.9.0.13, the default Monobook environment, and the Altviewer tool. Please feel free to use that datum in whatever test you'd like to conduct.

Eubulides (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't quite understand your point about sending messages back and forth. We wouldn't need that. I would suggest a title, you would alt-text it, post on your talk page when you'd finished, and we could see how long it took, and then judge how useful the alt text was. The Augusta article had very few images in it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• The interval between the time you suggested the article, and the time I started to look at the article, obviously shouldn't count; but that interval could well be a sizable fraction of the time it took to actually write the alt text. It would be reasonable to estimate that an article with twice as many images as the Augusta article would take about twice as long to write alt text for. And to get back to the unanswered question above about the experimental hypothesis: what would be the point of redoing the test? Eubulides (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Augusta, Lady Gregory's receding chin

How did you determine that she has a "receding chin" as described in the alt text for the profile. It doesn't look receding to me. I would not characterize it that way. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks "slightly" receding to me, but it's no big deal; remove that detail if you like. Eubulides (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text help

Any chance you could help me address some alt text stuff for these? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been adding alternative text for images in some of the Good Articles I've written. Can you review the text and make any suggestions before I write the text for the rest of the GAs? Hancock (film), Valkyrie (film), and Doomsday (film) are the alt text pages. I just want to make sure I'm doing it right and can advise others on how to do it right! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy to know I'm on the right track! The Doomsday poster was kind of a challenge because of the shape. How could I convey it in briefer form? An extended description on the image description page is a good idea, but would visually impaired readers know (or be able to know) that the fuller description exists? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For your diligence...

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your effort to encourage WP:ALT and to explain its application to all the editors who are still trying to wrap their head around the guidelines! You have the patience of a saint. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

Alt text status? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Colds7ream (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC

There's an (unnecessary?) RFC at Talk:Autism rights movement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Commonscat-inline

Question for you at Template talk:Commonscat-inline. --- RockMFR 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mindsite

<grrrr ... > Remember the headache we went through with MindSite, when they wanted us to use their site for all DSM diagnoses? Well, that's now a dead link at Tourette syndrome, and probably everywhere else as well !! See Talk:Tourette syndrome; where else did we use that site? I was never very comfortable with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Summary transferred and alt text shortened! Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text in Rudolf Caracciola

Hi. Can I assume that since you left no comments at Rudi's FAC that you are happy with the alt text? I have really no idea whether I'd done it right, as it's the first time I've been acquainted with this new (and necessary) criterion. Apterygial 07:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that images should have alt text, and I don't buy the argument that it takes to long to implement or puts an undue strain on the nominator - it took me about 15 minutes for Rudi's article, which compared to the time spent on other aspects is tiny. I do, however, try to steer clear of wikipolitics, for my own sanity, which is why I haven't commented at WT:FAC, but I have been reading it closely. Apterygial 07:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode

Hi, I didn't know whether to ask this here or on the ALT text page, but anyway. As I really don't understand template syntax very well, I was wondering if you could possibly put an ALT text field on Template:Infobox Simpsons episode? It would be incredibly helpful. Thanks, Gran² 12:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well that's good then, thanks! Gran² 16:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Purely decorative

Hi, question for you here. Could you give a clear definition of when an image is "purely decorative," so there are no misunderstandings? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the way you're interpreting what people say about this, particularly Graham87. You say in various places that he strongly supports alt text, but he has said it should be encouraged but not required, e.g. in this comment, which is what several of us are asking for and you are opposing. Given the disagreement about this, it's important we both try to be very faithful to what people have actually said. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Newman article

Hi Eubulides,
I was wondering if we could work together to expand the article I created, Bobby Newman, a PhD, and worldwide known behavioral analyst that works with children that are on the Autism spectrum.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I will work and get other user(s) to help me in the mean time; it takes more then one or two people to get things done, anyway. Enjoy your time off. ATC ^{. Talk} 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Autism Every Day

I'm trying to build on the comments made before by Objectivity... Lots of revisions before. I recently edited out an editors additions; 3rd paragraph of article. Could you look at my comments and the past comments. Seems the editors interpretations are poor...very tangential, not directly related to what he's trying to interpret, etc. 2nd and 3rd sentences. Also, he gives ISBN numbers that don't link to anything. Source cited should be verifiable? Re the general criticism he gives, seems like a a review kind if thing ... so I could find good reviews to add along as well. I thought the article as it was was good and factual. If people want reviews of the movie, then why not search for reviews elsewhere rather than an encyclopedia.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Done the lot! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text checkout

In the coming week, I'm planning on nominating 1968 Illinois earthquake for FA again. I've started the alt text on images, but left it unfinished because I'd like to get feedback on how it is. Would you mind just reading over them and telling me if they are sufficient? ceranthor 15:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ping, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1968 Illinois earthquake/archive2. ceranthor 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

FA for Otto Julius Zobel

You made some comments at the FAC for Otto Julius Zobel which was not promoted. Although your specific comments (on ALT text) were addressed, you did not return to either support or oppose the article. Can I ask what changes would induce you to support this article at a FAC, if indeed you would? SpinningSpark 16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Autism Every Day

Edit warring, now at ANI. I cleaned it up and will watch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox alt text request

Template:Infobox NBAretired needs an alt parameter. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, does Template:cr need to be outfitted for alt text? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, can you check the alt text at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I/archive2? It's basically the same for every image. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Shark Alt Text

Would you care to review the WP:ALT text at Shark. I am overseeing a WP:GAR and the issue has arisen at Talk:Shark/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text checker

What is going on with the alt text checker?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you mention those templates on my talk page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

alt text riddle

How do I add alt text to the Infobox_nrhp? Do I need a a parameter to do that, or do I just piggyback this on the image caption line? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ALT in Mumbai

I edited the mumbai tourist template. Whjat is left now? The alt tool says some very small imgs left. Hometech (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon FAC

Cheers, for pointing out the errors with the Alt text; I've changed them according to your suggestion and I think they now fit the guidelines of WP:ALT. You've had a lot of experience with alt text it seems; are the changes I've made acceptable? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC check..

Can you check the alt text on Chicado V for me? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It was OK, but I couldn't resist I tweaking it a bit by removing the "black and white image of" as per WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (example 2) and the link to a purely decorative flag image as per WP:ALT #When to specify. Also, I gave a few more details, such as the horse's sex (surely that doesn't require special expertise?...). Eubulides (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't tell the sex of a horse from a pic, especially not a mare. I changed the "blaze", which is a specific type of marking that doesn't just include forehead, to "spot". I think you're wrong on the black and white image part, I feel that's important as it helps date the image. Likewise, I think knowing that the image is a painting is important information, but I'm entirely too annoyed with the whole ALT text thing to bother fighting how it's being interpreted. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, as you can undoubtedly tell I am no horse expert. It looked like a blaze to me (I consulted Horse markings #Facial markings) but if there's a better term than "spot" to describe the marking I suggest using it, as it's useful information (and a non-horsy person will understand that it's some sort of spot). The point, ideally, is to briefly describe the horse well enough so that you can pick it out of a herd (isn't that the point of the photo?); I realize that this goal is hard to meet but at least let's do the easy parts. I restored the "black and white", but we've had feedback from Graham87 that color is typically not that important, and the body of the article already dates the horse so to the extent that "black and white" dates the image it's repeated information, which means it's not that useful. (Sometimes it's important to know that an image is a painting, but sometimes not; it depends on context.) I also changed "her" to "its". Eubulides (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The markings she has are a star-stripe-snip, that differs from a blaze in that a blaze is much wider... A blaze is generally wider than the nasal bone, much wider than that. You know it's a star-stripe instead of a blaze because you can see the bulge on the star. A blaze won't let you see where the star starts and stops. The little connections mean that the markings are connected (Yes, it is possible to have unconnected markings, I know one stallion with a star, a stripe-snip, and I've seen lots of star snip combos.) Id rather just do a description of the marking rather than try to explain the accurate description of them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox mineral

Needs an alt text parameter. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diamond/archive1 probably needs its alt text checked, too. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo has been promoted to FL status, but its image's alt text is inadequate. Can you write one up? Thanks, and sorry for plying you with all these requests. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai alt

why remove the dancing women image? Hometech (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt texts for maps

I was referred to you from Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Territorial evolution of Canada/archive1; we're trying to figure out what alt texts to give to the maps in the article. Could you come help please? :) Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Amino acid Alt text

WP:ALT text has become contentious at Talk:Amino acid/GA3. Please drop by.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you offer further guidance on this. I think the alt text is too high level and assumes knowledge that is not basic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Math and alt text?

Not sure how it's supposed to work; see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gold Glove Award winners at pitcher/archive1 (the footnote in the article). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Normally with math you use something like <math alt="3/5 = 0.6">\tfrac{3}{5} = 0.6</math>, but for really simple formulas like that it's simpler to omit math mode entirely, a point that should probably be made in WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You were reverted by User:Killervogel5; might want to explain the situation to him. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment on the FLC page; please let me know if any further clarifcation is needed, as I don't normally watch featured lists. Eubulides (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The nominator doesn't want to use plain text because it makes the equation smaller. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope there's an alternative. You might want to keep this one watchlisted for the time being. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An alternative? Heh. I'm sure we'll work something out. I'm watching that talk page for now. Eubulides (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, are the alt text issues at Penda of Mercia and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diamond/archive1 resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Diamond is done, but Penda of Mercia still has problems, noted in my latest comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Penda of Mercia/archive1. Eubulides (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to the alt text queries at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of West Virginia/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E

Thought you might appreciate this. Makes a light-hearted distraction from all the alt-text requests :-) Colin°^Talk 21:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for all of your work with ALT text, and especially for your fix of the {{Geobox}} template. Would you please be able to add an alt text parameter to {{Panorama simple}} and {{Panorama}}? Currently the caption is used as the alt etxt in these. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Penda of Mercia

Okay, I twiddled with the map alt text, but the other file you specified isn't in the article ... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's generated from a template. Go to the bottom of Penda of Mercia, click on the "[show]" button of the "Monarchs of Mercia" template, and you'll see the image in question. Click on the little "e" in the upper left corner (in the template's "v • d • e" region) to fix the template's alt text. You can fix that caption's hyphen to be an endash while you're at it. Eubulides (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. May I suggest that next time an image in a template needs alt text that you say it's in a template? I have my templates set to collapsed by default, and I thought I'd gone insane that I couldn't see the image you could. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know myself that it was in a template, until you asked. I used the Altviewer's analysis of the article, and it didn't tell me. Eubulides (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It's not been a very good morning here at the Bishops' Ranch (tm), so I'm crankier than usual, I suppose. Did the alt text on the map look okay? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for fixing all that. I'll follow up at the FAR page. Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ALT Text request

As a member of WP:USRD I'm following the discussions about ALT text surrounding the I-70 in CO article at FAC. I have 3 FAs and a FL to my credit that I'm working on updating with ALT text. Can you take a peek at what I added to M-28 (Michigan highway) and List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan? Once I get a handle on dong ALT text, I plan on updating the M-35 (Michigan highway) and U.S. Route 41 in Michigan FAs and then work down the classification scale to the A-Class articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The M-28 shield at the top of the infobox is supposed to be automated... I think it's just a matter of time before all of the sub-templates are updated. Same with the Business plate graphic called by the {tl|jct}} sub-templates. I'm not worrying about that at the moment since they should get fixed before long. I'm tying to get the gist of photos and other things. I appreciate the help since to some of us this so new, and I'd like to get a handle on how much is too much before I update the couple hundred Michigan highway articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Otomi language FAreview

I have adressed you concerns regarding alt text. Please see if it is satisfying.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

Hi. I think we need to apply LAYOUT's recommendation about "citations" contextually. LAYOUT proscribes "citations" because it "may be confused with official awards or a summons to court". No such confusion is possible for the article at hand. In reading Wikipedia articles, I have rarely – if ever – encountered this layout. Though it may just be that I'm not particularly observant, I think what is currently there is an oddment, even if it's not prohibited. The usual practice is to separate the bibliography and the inline citations into two sections, from what I've seen. What are your thoughts? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eubulides, the guideline is WP:CITESHORT. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just one other note, while we're discussing such things: do you have any objection to this? For me, the image's being left-aligned was interfering with the couplet, no matter how much I resized the window. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine, thanks for checking with a different browser than what I used. Eubulides (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your faith in our users is much too high...

...if you think "What's next? List of diseases that Wikipedia editors find amusing?" was being ironic. See my least favorite page on the entire project ("Hey! There's a congenital neurological disorder which is characterized by facial paralysis! Wish I could get me some of that for my next poker game with the boys, huh?) – iridescent 21:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedias Finest

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my proposed change to the leading paragraph on Asperger's. You helped form my understanding of how and what Wikipedia is. Sure, I could have read a book and all the help pages first, but your response was real. You gave generously to my hunger for experience, Eubulides. I also study Wikipedia help pages. Be There Do That (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)cpiral

Alt text

Could you look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States district and territorial courts/archive1 and give me some advice on how the alt image text can be improved? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tnanks for continuing to update and improve WP:ALT. It's inspired me to try to bring this article into line: treat this as a heads-up just for information, but if you do have time to look it over any critical comments will be welcome and will be acted on to improve the alt text. All your work on this is much appreciated, dave souza, talk 19:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Darwin! Wow. I'll see if I can take a look. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was already quite good; I added alt text for two images where it was missing, fixed a typo that prevented the map alt text from working, and tweaked the rest a bit. You can use the Altviewer tool to catch typos and alt-text-missing issues like that. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for picking these issues up, sorry about my errors – this will help me to learn! . .dave souza, talk 21:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Drew where are you: the case of the disappearing captions

The images on Unification of Germany are supposed to be bigger, but if I make them 300 px, as requested in a reviewer's comments, then the captions disappear. How do I enlarge the images and not lose the captions? Help me please! I've read through the material on the tutorial, and I'm not finding the answers (although I do see you've used some of the Unification images of Germania!).  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

one of the reviewers wants the images larger, and if I do that, the captions all of it not just the excess verbiage, disappears. I can trim the words, but how do I make the captions stay? 1.67 does work, it just makes the pictures huge.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A request

Thank you for doing the alt text on Stanley Green. I'm in the middle of preparing another article, Marshalsea, for FAC, and I was wondering if you'd consider doing the alt text for it too, if you have time. I'm at a loss as to how to handle it—there are maps, old pictures of London etc., which will be difficult to describe. Any help with it would be much appreciated. There's no desperate rush, as I still have one section to write, and some more tidying. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How about if I do the Hogarth image? That looks like the hardest. Plus, I think we can get a better copy. Eubulides (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything at all would be very much appreciated. I've still got writing to do, I'm struggling with the refs as with an octopus, and I can't face the thought of having to work out how to describe crazy scenes of London, 18th century prison buildings — and torture instruments! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I did the Hogarth image, and the vast majority of time was spent wrestling with getting a higher resolution version of it, moving it to Commons (I tried the automatic procedure, but that didn't work, so I ended up doing it by hand, feh), fiddling with the image file page there, and trying to figure out whether we should say that it was published in 1733 (Old Style) or 1734 (New Style). Anyway, I added some alt text for it; it was quite a challenge for alt text, for such a complicated scene, but the alt text was the least of my problems. For maps I suggest looking at WP:ALT#Maps; if there's any other image you're having particular difficulty with please let me know. Eubulides (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What you did was great, thank you, it's very kind of you. The alt text is great, and the higher resolution makes a huge difference because you couldn't see any of the detail before. As for the rest, I'm having difficulty with all of them, the maps especially (I have no idea how to approach a map), and this might be tricky, if it's to be described in any detail. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

so do you support this or is there more I should do? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

IAHP

Just noticed some significant edits in that article. Am going to review them in half-an-hour but let me know if you are in the middle of a big edit/lengthy-response (as you do!). Colin°^Talk 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:United States Governor templates

I added |link= to the navboxes in the above category. Did I do everything correctly? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I picked one at random, Template:Governors of Montana, and it looks OK. The jury's still out on whether one should remove the caption "State Seal of Montana" in cases like that, as Mediawiki turns it into alt text in that case. I've heard conflicting stories. I am now leaning toward removing the caption (alt text) for purely-decorative images but the more-conservative change is just to add "|link=" which is what you've done. Eubulides (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

upright image sizing

Hi Eubulides, I'm fuzzy about this "upright=1.xx" setting, which you said in an edit summary somewhere a few days ago is preferable for some users. When I gnome an article, I sometimes enlarge the default thumb pics using the px setting. I'm comprehending that it would be better if I used the "upright" system. Is this correct? Tony (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, nice addition, Eubulides. Now for the first time I understand that the =1.67 adds 2/3 to the standard default of 180px for a thumb. Just one question: 1.67 will give the user who has set a default of 300px a whopping 500px-width pic: won't that be too large? Or do we assume that such users (who must be a very small proportion of readers) are prepared to accept this? I assume it won't crowd the wrapped text off the page. Tony (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm using the upright= method now, and have found only the odd pic that needs to be boosted a lot. My concern is that on my iMac desktop 24" (pretty wide), my Safari browser normally throws up windows only about half as wide as the monitor (unless I manually grab the corner of one and widen it, in which case subsquent windows will be wider, too; but that will be too wide for most sites, and for WP text where no image is present, since the text lines are then as long as your arm and thus more difficult to read. There's also the issue of wanting to open two windows at once, for which my normal half-monitor window-width is good.

So I guess I'm wondering whether wide-screen owners typically, like me, open windows by default that are significantly narrower than their monitor allows. In this case, does the upright= setting crowd the text? Probably. The alternative px setting, I'm assuming, forces the size of an image to the same for everyone, irrespective of their default setting. I'm unsure whether WPs who've selected a large setting will be irritated by a pic that is 10% (or more) smaller than that. Tony (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it! Tony (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Long forgotten ESMS

Way back when we added "In other animals" to MEDMOS, I meant to look into Equine self-mutilation syndrome, colloquially referred to as Equine Tourette's. An entry on my talk page reminded me. There was a well-known race horse in CT by the name of Pepper Belle who was often touted by the TSA as having TS. From the three review sources I've listed on my talk, it's not clear to me that there is consensus that this is actually TS (as opposed to stereotypies, et al). I am utterly loathe to cite Jankovic's NEJM article (because it contains a fundamental misrepresentation of TS, a Venn diagram claiming that TS occurs at the intersection of tics, ADHD, OCD and behavioral problems ... absolutely incorrect, subject of letters to the editor of NEJM), but his exact wording in that paper is (PMID 11642235):

• There are no animal models of Tourette's syndrome, but several families of horses with equine self-mutilation syndrome have been described that have features resembling human Tourette's syndrome.

I also have full text on Jankovic's Volume 85 Advances in Neurology article, which says (PMID 11530424):

• One such putative model has been described in a special breed of horses who exhibit tic-like movements and self-mutilation. The features of this equine self-mutilation syndrome (ESMS) are contrasted with those of human TS in Table 2.3

Table 2.3 shows almost 100% compatibility with TS, the only exceptions being a higher male:female ratio in horses (7 to 1) and whether castration is a factor.

I don't have full text on the other paper (PMID 18541393), but the abstract gives a good idea. Do you think we should add a section, as that would show how an FA should cover animals per MEDMOS, or is the consensus too weak? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also [13], [14], [15], and PMID 8014092 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only real primary source here is Dodman et al. 2004 (PDF). Here's all that McDonnell 2008 (PMID 18541393) has to say about it:

"Dodman et al. (2004) have suggested that self-directed aggression in horses appears similar to Tourette's Syndrome in humans. Parallels cited as support for the equivalency are similarities in certain behavioral elements (self-biting, vocalization, head turning tics, striking out with a limb), as well as a male predilection and familial tendency, unrelenting course, exacerbation by stress, amelioration by absorbing activities, unimpaired performance, preoccupation with environmental boundaries, and occasional precipitation by trauma (Dodman, 2004)."

I found no other reviews of it. In their recent review on RRB, Lewis & Kim 2009 (doi:10.1007/s11689-009-9019-6) talk about restricted and repetitive behaviors in confined horses (crib-biting, head-shaking) and separately talk about Tourette's in other respects, but do not talk about Tourette's in horses.

Perhaps a very brief summary of the Dodman et al. hypothesis would be OK; if so, I would distill what's in the comment above and cite McDonnell, making it clear that it's just a hypothesis and not implying that it's generally accepted. McDonnell's wording is pretty good in that respect. On the other hand, it'd be fine to not mention this stuff at all, as it's pretty marginal.

More useful for the article would be to add a discussion of animal models, e.g., Swerdlow & Sutherland 2005 (PMID 15970330). I know, I know, animal models are boring, but they're important for the research. Eubulides (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thx, Eubulides. Discussing animal models from a research perspective would probably by over my layperson's head; I wonder if I could use another silver bullet and ask TimVickers to add it. I'm conflicted about whether to add the equine info to TS. It's weak, and if we add it, it could attract problematic edits, but on the other hand, it would provide a model of compliance with MEDMOS. Maybe will wait and see what Colin says. Besides, I've become so bored with keeping up with the TS article, amidst my other duties. I don't know how you keep up with autism and alt-text at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Would the horses be considered as one possible animal model? I agree that animal models should be mentioned in the article and the "History of" article. They are an essential tool for understanding any complex organic disease, and the lack of good models for TS reflects the immature state of research/therapy. It doesn't sound like we need much additional text. Eubulides, could you summarise Swerdlow & Sutherland? Colin°^Talk 20:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The animal models are mostly rodents, I'm afraid. A better source would be: Burke K, Lombroso PJ (2005). "Animal models of Tourette syndrome". In LeDoux M (ed.). Animal Models of Movement Disorders. Elsevier. pp. 441–8. doi:10.1016/B978-012088382-0/50040-2. ISBN 0-12-088382-1. You can get a limited preview on Google Books. The previous chapter in that book, by Singer et al., might also be relevant. Does this let me off the hook? Eubulides (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Eubilides, just a quick thank you for taking the time to review the alt image text for the Quiriguá FA nom. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Am I correct in saying that the images at List of recognised political parties in India (see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of recognised political parties in India/archive1) need alt text (versus link=)? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you check out the alt text at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia/archive1, specifically, the map? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in New Jersey/archive2 too. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a good start for the alt text in the latter list? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Alt text guideline criticism

Hi Eubulides. I just wanted to let you know.. I think it's silly that you have to spend so much time and effort defending the alt text guideline against all that criticism and opposition on the talk page. Although I whine about having to textualize a video, I acknowledge its importance. Don't get discouraged, I think what you're doing is good for Wikipedia. -- œ^™ 03:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California's 12th congressional district election, 1946/archive1

Needs an alt text check. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was about to post about that, actually, since I was going down my FA checklist. Three supports, yes, image check, yes, what's this say in scribbled crayon? Oh. Alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Decorative image

I believe that the image in Template:Include-USGov needs a link= because it is purely decorative. Can you make the edit request? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you know how to describe the image at List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnson and pending travel

I'm going to be traveling for three weeks, end of September, and will have limited, slow internet access. In the event that Raul runs Samuel Johnson's early life on the mainpage on September 18 (Johnson's 300th birthday), would you and Colin be able to keep an eye on it and Samuel Johnson? Tourette syndrome may get additional traffic that weekend as well. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Be happy to. Happy trails! Eubulides (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I hope I have more fun than you do on mainpage day :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1

Nominator needs help writing alt text. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PANDAS

Thank you for staying on top of PANDAS, with your infinite patience, diligence, and research skills. I'm sorry I'm so unhelpful now, as I'm trying to get out the door. I won't have access to my "bottom file drawer" while I'm away, but I will try to gain internet access every day or so, just to weigh in as might be needed. Yes, I know I need to ditch IE8, but there are only so many hours in a day, and right now, I can't coax it's blipping search function into working on your recent reviews, and my computer is bombing every time I try to print them. I get so frustrated when I'm swamped like this, and see an accurate (if incomplete) article being taken apart just as I'm trying to travel. I hope we can get rid of the text taken directly from the NIH without quotes; even though it's public domain, lifting direct quotes without quotations isn't good practice! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You, sir, are brilliant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

I reinstated at least a see also to Wikipedia:Gallery tag in Help:Files for a few reasons. 1. See also's are cheap. 2. Help:Files is the target of the redirect Help:Gallery. 3. The gallery tag is a popular one and anybody who comes to Help:Files is likely to make using the gallery tag his next step.

Many people make mistakes when using the gallery tag. This is see a lot during my regular wikignoming. That is why I decided to make information about the gallery tag more prominent in a few key places. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep my talkpage watched for my reply. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A little favor...

Can you vote (support/oppose) in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loihi Seamount/archive3? I need as many votes as I can get, which isn't much. Thank you, ResMar 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Altviewer improvements

tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?headlinks=WP:FAC&interface=standard

I've merged all the regular expressions together for a combined table which has reduced redundancy. Also, the tool now uses the pagegenerators library which allow for scan of categories, backlinks, page links, and others. So you can load the entire FAC page, but actually reviewing it a lot more tedious than for the disambiguation links. The introductory text still need to be improved, but hopefully you'll tell me if I've missed anything major. — Dispenser 22:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work. I did notice one glitch, at the output for Rolls-Royce Merlin: at the bottom it says "Displaying None of 16 images from ...". I assume that's the Python "None"? Eubulides (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to append &interface=standard to the url to get the new interface. I just wanted to know if there were any serious problem. Having images in order makes it easier to find them in the article, but at the expense of have context specific messages (from grouping them). — Dispenser 01:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks for explaining. I far prefer the new behavior that outputs the images in order; it makes them easier to find in the article. In comparing the old to the new interface I have one suggestion. The text at the top has some grammar problems and makes it a bit hard to easily pick out the link back to the page being analyzed. I suggest something like the following instead:

Black Hawk War

Alternative text (alt text) is meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser. It should summarize an image's appearance, and should not duplicate its caption. Every image should have alt text, except for purely decorative images, which should instead have "|link=".

The following table shows images and captions on the left, and alt text and captions on the right: the right column is what a visually impaired reader will hear. This table was computed from the copy of Black Hawk War cached on 11 September 2009 at 04:38 UTC. The table does not contain purely decorative images.

• One other thing comes to mind. Perhaps there should be an option to list purely decorative images as well? That way, I could more easily catch the problem where an image is marked as purely decorative but should instead have alt text as a link. This problem is of course not a new one, but I just ran across it when reviewing an article and so I thought that I'd mention it.

Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have copied your introduction text, translation support is implemented, working on decorative images, and a better use of colors. If the tool hasn't been coughing up old version I'd like to remove the cache timestamp since it is already included as a HTML comment. — Dispenser 06:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been seeing old versions lately. Thanks for all the work. Will this new version be the default for other people soon? Eubulides (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I spoke too quickly. I just now visited http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=2004_World_Series and it gave me obsolete alt text. The comment at the bottom said "This page was last modified on 15 September 2009 at 16:59" (presumably this is UTC? it should say), but the toolserver incorrectly says the alt text for the first image begins "Albert Pujols..." The Albert Puhols text was removed more than eight hours before that, at 2009-09-15 08:25:39 UTC. This suggests that the time stamps on the cache aren't right? Eubulides (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There are still 1 to 2 things I'd like to solve before the grand roll out, which would be in about 1-2 weeks. You might interested in trying out the User:Dispenser/alttextexplorer.js which tries to solve the problem of showing alt text when you aren't looking for it. — Dispenser 07:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1

Hi you have new messages here. Regards! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 04:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges in Montreal/archive1 needs alt text review (with an eye toward verifiability). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Another pre-FAC check...

Can you look over Barbara L for image problems or anything else you notice that doesn't make sense to a non-horse person? Thanks in advance! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks good to me, thanks for writing it. Saaaay.... you aren't trying to turn me into a horse person, are you? Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(adjusts her halo) I would never, ever dream of that! (smiles innocently). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot at ANI

Would you please have a look at this discussion where I mentioned your name. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:DERM:MA

We are making a lot of great progress with the Bolognia Push 2009. If you are not currently involved, perhaps consider contributing as we are always looking for more help at the dermatology task force. Feel free to e-mail me for all the details. ---kilbad (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt texts

Hi, I hope this time I make it for the alt texts in Gyeongju. Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy-editing of alt texts taking your time and efforts, but I assure you that I've read the Alt guideline over and over per your suggestion and tried to follow the rule, but I really have been frustrated with the ALT requirement that I can not quiet understand. Anyway, thanks again for the improvement.--Caspian blue 21:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. The best way to learn is by doing, and you were doing pretty well actually. If you can suggest specific improvements in WP:ALT#Maps, or areas where it is not clear, please follow up at WT:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Port

Thankyou very much for your comments at the FAC for the Battle of Grand Port. The article has now passed, and your interest and comments during the process were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ISS Alt texts

Hi Eubulides, I've had another go over the alt texts for the International Space Station article taking into account your previous comments, and was wondering if you'd have another go over them and see how I'm doing, please? Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed one phrase I'd remove as per WP:ALT#Maps: "with red dots and labels". Plus, the proper names for the modules ("Zarya", "Unity", "Zvezda", etc.) should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Other than that it looks fine to me. I admit, though, that I didn't read every phrase carefully, as much of it appears to be the same as before; is there anything about it that you'd like to draw my attention to? Eubulides (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've made those alterations. I just wanted to check whether you thought I'd addressed the comments you made here, and, more to the point, whether or not you feel the images in the article all meet FA requirements? Colds7ream (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not checked each earlier comment I made carefully (wow! I was really detailed there!) but the overall impression I get from reading the alt text now is that it's fine, and doesn't suffer from any of the systemic problems noted earlier. The images all look FA quality to me, yes. Good luck! Eubulides (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed! :-) You've been a great help, and its much appreciated! I'm planning on running an A-class review before the next FAC, would you mind commenting in it when the time comes? Incidentally, I notice that WP:ALT now has my video text as an example - I'm presuming you put it there, and I'd like to say thanks for that too; it's nice to see your work given as a good example! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For providing some fantastic assistance with the alt texts in International Space Station! Many thanks! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and sure, give me a heads-up. And thanks for the star. Eubulides (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Another FAC alt text request

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford/archive1 hasn't had anyone mention the alt text yet. If you get a chance to do so, would you mind taking a look? Thanks in anticipation, Bencherlite^Talk 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's reassuring anyway! (And thanks for the swift response.) I've added more images since nomination, but followed the basic point of describing the image, not repeating the caption, so hopefully your initial impression hasn't been negated. The only one I was wondering about was the plan of the college in the lead: sometime ago, someone suggested having a plan to make the discussion of the buildings easier to follow, and I was worried that describing the plan would require excessive alt text - do I go into too much detail in the alt text there, or not enough? Should I add something like "See article text for further details of the layout"? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, which I've implemented. If you feel like popping over to the FAC and saying anything about the alt text, that would be great. The nom's been running for 11 days now, so it'd be good to tie up the remaining loose ends soon before stagnation point is reached. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Shuttle-Mir Program Alt texts.

Hi, it's me again. :-) Just wondering how I go about placing |link= on the patches in the gallery at the end of the article? There doesn't seem to be any simple way to do so. Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As noted in WP:PIC#Galleries, the gallery tag doesn't support alt text. I suggest replacing it with table syntax or with {{Image gallery}}. Eubulides (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks for the tip. Colds7ream (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Having had a bit of a play, it seems there's no way to display the patches properly and with |link=, so I'll just get rid of the gallery. Colds7ream (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I had been thinking that if a list of missions is important, there should be a table, containing not only the mission patches, but also useful textual info about the missions (date, commander, notes, etc.), as is done in List of bridges in Montreal say. But perhaps this would be better for a list subpage anyway. Eubulides (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia ALT text

Eubulides, last week you commented on the ALT text of the article on Virginia over at its FAC page. I first had a question I hoped you could answer: The state flag includes the state seal, so can we refer to the flag as "a blue field with the state seal in the center" if we also describe the state seal in detail, or do we need to repeat the definition of the seal when describing the flag? Second, I had hoped that with the fixes that went in based on your comments, that you might be able to sign off on the article, at least its ALT text. Thanks!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 15:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure I properly thanked you for your assistance in bringing the article to FA status. It was promoted last week, so thanks once again!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ALTs

Well, I don't really know how to make alts in Rumford Prize work, because its a long series of potraits and because they all look about the same. Help? ResMar 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The FLC page is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive2. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem overloaded. What a conciensious worker :) Any way I can help? ResMar 03:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rumination syndrome

I imagine the list of problems you found is only an excerpt of what is to come. I'm pretty certain that withdrawl would be best. Would you be willing to peer review it? You're certainly a hundred times more in depth than the previous reviewer (No offense to them, as they were PRing it for good article status), and I would really like to get this article to the front page to try and raise some awareness of its existence. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I could take a shot a peer review but should warn you that I'm becoming overloaded and that it won't be done immediately. Eubulides (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Take all the time you need :) Besides, I'd need to wait 2 weeks for peer review anyways. Thanks! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt text insecurities at Leopold Report

Hello, Eubulides, I hope you don't mind me contacting you personally; I'm gearing up for my next FAC, but as it's been a few months since the last, I've just now been introduced to the importance of alt text. So as not to take up too much time during the review, would you mind taking a look at Leopold Report and offering a few suggestions? There are only three images, but before I go back and add alt text to my seven other FAs, I'd like to know I'm on the right track! Thanks for any help you can give, María (habla conmigo) 16:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! María (habla conmigo) 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

PANDAS

Hello, Eubulides, I'm still tracking down a copy of Pichichero2009. It has been somewhat difficult to find (although strangely seems to at a couple of used book stores already :-)). There's a line in the classification section you wrote and I wonder what the original text being cited said. You wrote "PANDAS has not been validated as a classification of diseases, for several reasons." Does Pichichero2009 actually say that? Regards, Buster23 (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag icon alt text has returned?

Hi Eubulides, after all the work you did to make the flag templates compliant with WP:ALT, it seems as though a recent update of MediaWiki software has changed things. Now I see the image filename with {{flag}}. For example, the output of that template will product markup such as [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|22x20px|border |link=]] — and the link= was your recommended change — but that results in . On IE7 I now see the image filename, but I didn't see that before the update on Wednesday (or thereabouts). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess now you need to add both |alt= and |link=; before you could add just |link=. Was this change intended, or is it a bug? Eubulides (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have followed up at User talk:Remember the dot #Repercussions of alt-text handling change. Eubulides (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt text galore

I've been working on the alt text for FAs for which I am a significant contributor. If you could look over the 30+ articles listed on my user page, I would appreciate it. It actually took me awhile to add the alt text to all of these articles, so I anticipate that you will tire of looking at them (as I did). There is no rush on this at all - if you finish looking them over six months from now, that is absolutely fine. Much of the alt text probably focuses more on artistic elements of the images that you would recommend (I was an art history-English double major as an undergraduate), but I tried to find an appropriate balance of information. If you see anything amiss, please just go ahead and change it. I've gone through most of the articles twice or three times, so I've done the best I can for the present. Thanks in advance! Awadewit (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt text issue

Why isn't the infobox image showing in the alt text checker?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. I filed a bug report at User talk:Dispenser #Altviewer is missing lead infobox images. Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Input requested at Dustbin Baby (film)

Hi, I'm currently in a conversation with an admin who is advocating for the usage of this phrasing: "(person) suffers from Asperger syndrome", despite objections from several editors who find this usage disabling and inappropriate. I would appreciate your input: please see Talk:Dustbin Baby (film)#Phrasing of content addressing Asperger syndrome. Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation/patent

See this code. It still uses <cite>. Shouldn't it be changed to <span class="citation"> too? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt text question

Would you be able to offer your opinion regarding an alt-text question at this FAC? It's one of those questions to which there's no right answer. The image in question is File:Union Street Fire, 1885.jpg, and the current alt-text reads "Stylised black and white engraving in the style of Edward Burne-Jones. A woman in heroic pose in a flowing white dress stands in a window holding a child, while a fireman stands on a ladder, roughly level to the window, and reaches out to take the child. A Royal Navy sailor in full uniform, further down the ladder, holds another child."

My personal opinion is that, given that the image is used to illustrate a section where what is pictured in the image (i.e., the fact that the woman and children are shown with the sailor and fireman even though neither a sailor nor fireman was present) is the topic, not the artistic style of the image, then the alt-text should describe the contents of the picture and not go into details of the artwork. Most blind readers will be unlikely to care exactly how the Burne-Jones "idealised androgynous figures with exaggerated facial features" school of design differed from the prevalent Pre-Raphaelite and Romantic styles of the period (and those who do care can read Edward Burne-Jones for an explanation), while the not-visually-imparied-but-using-a-screen-reader-to-save-bandwidth readers can view the image if they really care. However, I do recognize that this is intentionally making the alt-text less informative for the sake of saving space, and that I'm making an assumption-without-evidence that most users of screen readers will prefer short but less-accurate text to a long descriptive piece which I'm guessing they generally won't want to read. Do you have any thoughts? (If you do, could you raise them at the FAC rather than here, so others can see them.) – iridescent 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for your participation in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1. The resulted was Promoted. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"A gloomy journey amongst uninhabited islands"

I have been asked at the List of Outer Hebrides FL candidature (nom) to include alt text for the captions - a task I am new to. I have had a go and it was suggested you may be able to help. Any assistance gratefully received. Ben MacDui 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for the "link=|alt=" fixes. Ben MacDui 18:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Autism

My computer has been cutting out so I don't know if you got my previous edit. I think that Ryan's Law and the 16 other states that have passed legislation is very important to the topic of Autism as a whole. I would even be willing to do the research to find out what is available internationally and we could include that too. I don't think it is inappropriate at all and I do not see why you do. Ryan's Law may only be important to people from South Carolina, but that legislation as a whole is extremely important to the rest of the United states. Ryan's Law and the law in Indiana changed the way Autism is paid for and thus the way it can be administered. This is a watershed event. We both obviously care about Autism. The financial burden of Autism is a reality that this legislation seeks to deal with. A couple sentences does not cut it. I can find a scholarly article if you want, but please don't be so dismissive of this important development.129.252.67.2 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(excuse me butting in) I think the existing one sentence on US healthcare / autism is sufficient. There are six and a half billion other people on this planet who are less interested in US details. Colin°^Talk 16:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. The research on Ryan's Law etc. has already been done by Reinke, and this source is already summarized and cited by the Autism article. There's no need to do that research ourselves (and this would be original research anyway, which Wikipedia is not supposed to do). Eubulides (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying why can't we cover even the international laws. Fine people don't care about the US, cheers to them. All I am saying is that the actual mechanisms are extremely important. And I am well aware that people don't care about what's going on in the US and that South Carolina is a very small piece of the puzzle, but I think the article right now is missing an important detail. I'm not going to change it back and I respect both your opinions. On a side note, there's no need to be condescending Colin, I was just trying to make a point. 24.168.231.81 (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

How do you find the pages that need to be fixed according to WP:ALT #Purely decorative images? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested...

User talk:Iridescent#A penny for your thoughts. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Image request

Hi Eubulides, if you have time and inclination, I was wondering if you'd be willing to work some of your magic on this image, as you did with the Hogarth image in Marshalsea. It's for 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla, which I'm thinking of submitting for FAC. I'd like to use the image of the women and children as the lead image, but it's in poor shape, particularly with the pixels being so visible. If there's anything you can do to clean it up, it would be much appreciated, though please feel free to ignore this request if it's inconvenient. Best, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned you

Please see here, which started bottom of MoS talk. Cheers. Tony (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt-text question

Like you don't get these often now that I look, LOL! :)

This came up on the help desk and I answered as best I could, then I went back and revised my proposal for alt-text, thinking about it again with my eyes closed. This diff shows both my first and second versions. The proposed alt-text is for File:Day1otlk 20090210 1200 prt.gif, used in relation to February_2009_tornado_outbreak#Storm_development.

You may want to comment at the help thread, you may want to help the OP there to understand, but I'm asking for my own benefit: can you critique the text I proposed in that thread? Do it there, here, at my talk, wherever - it's a fundamental part of making an encyclopedia that I really need to learn more about. I'd be interested to know how far my first attempt fell short! :)

Thanks & regards. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response there, I've replied with a colour-quibble. Could you save me some time and point me to a well-used reading package? I think maybe I have to actually try this, which I can do easily enough by just turning the monitor off to get a 50% approximation. Regards! Franamax (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. By "well-used reading package" do you mean a screen reader? JAWS is the most popular. I use Orca. Eubulides (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

I've peddled your mad WP:V/WP:MEDRS skills here. I hope you'll take it as a compliment :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to copyrighted material

Per Wikipedia:ELNEVER#Restrictions_on_linking you can link to a copyrighted work on another website if it is likely that the website has a licence to use the work. It is very unlikely that the University of California is hosting copyright violations on its website, so I don't think you need remove the Broken mirrors link from articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a fun one. As a state institution the University of California cannot be successfully sued for copyright violations, even when reproducing unlicensed material; see, for example, a 2000 statement before Congress by The Register of Copyrights. The copy in question is hosted by a UC unit headed by one of the coauthors, so it's safe to assume that the coauthor approves of this copy. However, the copy clearly states "Copyright 2006 Scientific American, Inc." (which means the coauthor's permission is legally irrelevant) and later a stern notice "Materials received from the Scientific American Archive Online may only be printed for your personal, non-commercial use following 'fair use' guidelines. Without prior written permission from Scientific American, Inc., materials may not otherwise be reproduced ...". My best guess is that the copy is unlicensed, but the coauthor didn't notice that or doesn't care, and Scientific American can't legally do anything about it. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily true, I'd assume that a coauthor has the right to reprint a pdf version of an article on a personal website and this has "prior written permission", this is pretty common with journals at least. Anyway, its up to you of course, but I don't think you HAVE to remove the link. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although in such cases I typically don't see copies plastered with restrictive copyright notices. Instead, I typically see the author's manuscript without a notice, or perhaps a copy of the article from the journal with a notice saying "reproduced with permission". It is a close call, and perhaps you're right, so I undid the change to Asperger syndrome. For Autism this article isn't as important, since we have better and more recent sources (it's just that they don't mention Asperger's). Eubulides (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help me

Please correctly do the alt text for February 2009 tornado outbreak. Showtime2009 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already helped quite a bit with the alt text, by commenting at some length at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/February 2009 tornado outbreak/archive2, and later by writing the alt text for one image, as an example; this alt text was later installed by Franamax. I'm afraid that I don't have time to write alt text for all the featured article nominees out there: can you please try to write alt text for the remaining images in that article that have problems, with my comments and example in mind, or find another volunteer who can take it on? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Eub is right, they've already given lots of clues and helped me out to boot. Showtime, I'm still willing to give you somewhat amateur help at your talk page, jusy say so. But really, no-one is too likely to just go and do the job for you. Franamax (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the alt text for Planetary nebula

For the featured article review of Planetary nebula I have added alt text as you requested. Please review it and if possible help improve what I wrote. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored my comments to the original position

It appears your move confused Tony1 into supposing I was going to specify a pixel size. My post was more comment than yea or nay; it was bound to generated threaded responses and has done so. To place that sort of thing within the poll rather than within the commentary tends to short circuit the poll. I wished to raise a new issue and provoke new angles of discussion. Durova³²¹ 17:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For invaluable help in improving the Jackie Robinson article in its (finally successful) fourth FAC review. BillTunell (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Award

Needs an alt text parameter. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Eubulides (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

template:FAC-instructions

Hi Eubulides, this edit had some unintended effects, I think. On the FAC page, a list of all the FACs and FARs was inserted on the template before the nominating procedure instructions. Might want to re-evaluate in a sandbox perhaps? Nathan ^T 22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

alt

I now have an image in Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident which is in an infobox. Do I need to put alt text in it? If so, how do I do it? Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use the |alt= parameter I just added to {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Eubulides (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tx. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Political history of Mysore and Coorg FAC

All the alt-text issues are now resolved, I hope. I hadn't realized that alt-text exists for the sight-impaired. I welcome comments from you at the FAC review. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

		The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your help in getting Interstate 70 in Colorado to Featured Article status. Dave (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Hi Eubulides, I am confused as to how to start putting the alt text into the images in the gallery at Disasters of War. Is there a template that enables or a technique? Thanks for your help...Modernist (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text issue (2)

The alt text for an image is not displaying with the checker at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in Missouri/archive1. Can you check it out? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem now. Which image is it? Sometimes the Altviewer runs off an old cache; that might explain why you saw a problem and I don't see one now. By the way, it's no big deal but I'd change "A state map highlighting Worth County in the northwestern part of the state" to the briefer "Worth County is in the northwestern part of the state". Eubulides (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I still can't see the alt text for the first image. Also, is the math text in List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches accessible? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the Missouri map. As per WP:ALT#Math the math formula is accessible only to readers who speak TeX, which seems a bit much for such a simple formula. Eubulides (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Do you know how to fix it? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would fix it by saying that simple formula in English; there's no need for any math at all. For example, "When computing the win-loss percentage, a tie counts as half a win and half a loss." That would be easier to for sighted readers, too. Eubulides (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: Is Template:MLB awards fine with link=, or should it have normal alt text? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Template:Philly Baseball Wall of Fame. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates like that, where the image has no function and conveys no useful information, should mark the images with "|link=|alt=". It used to be just "|link=", but due to changes in the Mediawiki "|alt=" is now needed as well; see WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. I patched one of the templates to do that. Eubulides (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your recent help. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I hate to bug you yet again, but can you offer suggestions on how to improve the alt text of the graph at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag/archive3? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Water fluoridation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page.

No one person owns a wikipedia page. Thanks! Gregwebs (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ketogenic diet

Eubulides,

I've put ketogenic diet up for peer review in order to push it towards FAC. It would be wonderful if you could find time to review this. In particular, I'm hoping for your usual fussiness wrt quality of sources and the text<->source agreement. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that article: at first glance it looks to be in quite good shape. I'll try to pry free some time to do it justice. (Hmm, "as cited by"? ok, ok, so perhaps I am a bit fussy...). Eubulides (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrt "as cited by", I'm trying to handle secondary citations. I can't find what the Vancouver style is for that. Should it just be "cited by" or "cited in"? I haven't read the ancient Greek texts nor have I read the French article, but I have read the source that cites them. Colin°^Talk 08:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greek texts are generally available online nowadays, and I can read a little Greek, so maybe I can help out. Often translations are also available, which'd be even better. (OK, so I am fussy after all.) How's your French? Eubulides (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you think you can do better than Owsei Temkin? :-) Isn't this a primary/secondary thing? It is one thing for an article on an ancient Greek to cite Greek texts, but surely The Falling Sickness is scholarly enough a source for a statement on what the Greeks said about epilepsy and food. Plus, once we start citing the Greek, we'd have to say which manuscript edition (which Temkin does in his bibliography). I've got at least two papers that cite Temkin rather than the ancient texts.

I think we probably say enough about Guelpa and Marie's study, and citing Bailey(2005) lets us make claims (first modern).

What improvements do you think we could make here? I think our readers would be better served reading Temkin's excellent book than trying to make sense of the original texts. But if we cite both, it is up to them.

Here's an example of where amateur-historians citing historical texts get into trouble. Some of the papers on the KD claim epilepsy is treated in the Bible through "prayer and fasting" (Mark 9:29, Matthew 17:21). There are three problems with that. Firstly Jesus is explaining why the disciples failed to cast out the demon: they weren't devoted enough in their prayer. He isn't advising the boy with the demon to pray and fast. Secondly, most modern translations omit the "and fasting" aspect altogether as it only appears in some manuscripts. Thirdly, I'm not aware of any tradition in Christianity that suggests people with epilepsy should fast. Temkin doesn't mention such a practice, though he does describe some priests in the Middle Ages suggesting those Bible verses could cure if heard during a sermon or if written down and carried as a amulet. I suspect if the authors of those KD papers had consulted a scholarly work, they might not have come to that conclusion. It is a meme now, with one paper copying the intro from another, but I don't intend to repeat it. If someone challenges that then I'll ask them to produce some Bible scholarship supporting it. Colin°^Talk 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree pretty much with all of the above points (including my abilities versus Temkin's!) except that, if the article relies on Temkin, it should cite Temkin, and not cite the sources that Temkin cites. Philitas of Cos cites an ancient Greek or Roman source only when I checked the quote or claim directly against the source or its translation (and the corresponding citations list the manuscript edition and/or translation version); when it is relying on what some modern commentator says about an ancient source (e.g., "Longus' 2nd century AD novel Daphnis and Chloe contains a character likely named after him.", citing Hunter 1996) it cites the modern commentator and not the ancient source. Eubulides (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better if the citation was reversed? "Temkin (1971), p57. Citing Galen, De venae sect. adv. Erasistrateos Romae degentes; c. 8; vol. 11." I'd be loath to remove the historical cite altogether as readers would have to buy the book in order to find the relevant text. Colin°^Talk 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I've asked Fvasconcellos about improving the chemical structure diagrams + alt text for them. He's moving house so that might not happen immediately. Would you be kind enough to review my (probably lame) efforts with the other pictures. Are you sick of alt text yet? You need a "league of alt-text experts" to spread the load. And, no, I'm not volunteering! Colin°^Talk 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, I think I've addressed your concerns at peer review (though I may still find/add some more on the "dietitian's POV"). Could you have a look? Do you think you could find some time to offer some more opinions on the article? Thanks very much. Colin°^Talk 20:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Flagicon alt text

Hi Eubulides, per your request at Template talk:Flagicon, the alt text now matches the link name. But I'd also like your opinion for templates such as {{fb-big}}, used on pages such as FIFA World Cup#Results. Would you say they are just as decorative as the standard flag icons, despite the larger size, and ought to be rendered the same way? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as WP:ACCESSIBILITY goes, I don't see much difference between {{fb-big}} and {{flag}}: both have a flag and a country name, with the flag being purely decorative, and in both cases the flag should be marked with "|link=|alt=". Eubulides (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I think that results in the alt attribute parameter for flag templates being completely unused, so I will clean those up as well. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Connected templates

See Template_talk:Citation/core#Specific_changes for my reply. The idea is that {{Citation}} and {{Citation/core}} are connected, but {{Citation}} is doing something on its own. So I had made two editprotected requests. Just that there are no admins around who are knowledgable enough and are willing to make edits. I have a few more pending. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt in the galleries

Thanks for your help in setting up the gallery for alt text at Disasters of War. I completed adding the text, hopefully correctly, although I noticed they haven't registered in the alt text tool. Thanks again...Modernist (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again thanks for your help...Modernist (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Talk:Asperger_syndrome#Is_characterized_by_2. I'm waiting for your reply.

You can delete this message when you see it. MichaelExe (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Kanhopatra : Alt text

I wanted someone to check alt text for the article, User:Abecedare made some changes and directed me here. Would you please take a look. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed typos that prevented the alt text from working at all. It looks good now; thanks to all who wrote it. Eubulides (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical featured articles

Do you think that for your next medical FA, you could pick a less controversial subject? :-) Colin°^Talk 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of upping the ante. The most logical article for me to nominate would be Chiropractic: it's already of FA quality, and the only thing holding me back, actually, is that it'd be more hassle even than Water fluoridation. Probably by a factor of three. Once that's done, maybe Homeopathy would be next? Eubulides (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you are entitled to choose what you want. And if you enjoy the fight... It's just so much effort when major-topic-articles like epilepsy lie neglected by both vandals, POV-pushers, and editors. But I do appreciate the work you do to ensure these controversial subjects are handled well. Colin°^Talk 21:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I was joking! I agree that Epilepsy is a much better target. I had my eye on Cancer, actually, as it gets more hits than even Epilepsy. It'd be a lot of work, though; it's surprisingly hard to find good sources on cancer in general. Eubulides (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, that was a cruel joke! You're such a serious chap and it seemed so plausible. I can't deny that cancer is a top-importance topic, though naturally I have preferences towards wanting to see epilepsy improved (good general sources are easy to find, not quite such a big subject as cancer, less controversial still). I don't have cancer watchlisted and assumed it was frequently edited but it doesn't seem to be being actively worked on. It has been semi-protected for a long time. The scope of these big-topic articles is scary, which is why I down-sized to work on KD. Colin°^Talk 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation conspiracy

Eubulides, do you have a source (or even a decent web page) that specifically counters stuff like this and this. My guess for the second one is that sodium fluoride is being confused with Sodium fluoroacetate. Where does the first idea come from and what aspects of it are mistaken? I tried searching on Google and Google Scholar and gave up after the first 10 pages of ConspiraciesAreUs websites. Colin°^Talk 16:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The most reliable sources I know of in the general area are Armfield 2007 (PMID 18067684) and Freeze & Lehr 2009 (ISBN 0470448334). Alas, I don't have easy access to the latter. The stories about fluoridation being a Nazi and/or Communist mind-control plot go back to the 1950s and were an invention then. Many decades ago sodium fluorosilicate was used to poison rats, but nowadays other, more-effective rodenticides are used, generally warfarin and related compounds; the only fluoride compounds I know that are still used for that are sodium fluoroacetate and fluoroacetamide. Eubulides (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

United States doesn't have alt text!

dude, it doesn't have alt text yet, i'll try and get to it unless you get there before me, Tom B (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot

How are we supposed to determine who triggers the bot, for example here? Was that you, reinstating that parameter, or did someone else initiate it after you removed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no way to tell. I usually guess by seeing who edits right away afterwards, cleaning up the mess. Unfortunately many editors fire off the bot and forget it (partly, I expect, because it takes sooo long to run). In this case possibly it was due to the citation bot maintainer, trying to figure out the bug? By the way, I have discovered that someone added a huge bloat to the output generated by the citation templates, bloat that is not at all visible on the screen, and which increases the size of the data delivered to the browser by about 25%, making Wikipedia slower for everyone, for the benefit of a very small number of readers who use non-browser software to slurp in citations so that they can write their papers. I'd like to do away with this when I have the time. Citations are such a pain! Eubulides (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you

You're probably exhausted of hearing this, but I added alt text to the article in question. ceranthor 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that I've finished. Sorry for the delay, been a bit busy. ceranthor 01:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text request

I'm coming back to Wikipedia after a long break; there seems to be a new push for alternative text on images at FAC, and you seem to be a point person for this. After reading about the text, I've added it one of my better-kept FAs. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at your leisure and let me know if I'm doing it correctly, or if you have any suggestions for improvement. The article in question is stable and is already featured, so there's no need for immediacy if you're occupied with other matters at FAC or elsewhere. Thanks, Pagrashtak 01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for fixing the change to WP:IUP. Tony (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image for Makinti Napanangka

Thank you for yor contributions re images at the above article. Assuming for the moment that inclusion of a copyright image would qualify under fair use, I have no skills in capturing or processing such an image. The jpgs on gallery sites appear to me encrypted or somehow protected from copying (for obvious reasons). Have you any advice, or can you point me to a web page that might assist me? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you look at this proposal and tell me if you think it will pass muster? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion to continue at Talk:Makinti Napanangka (moved from Elcobbola's talk page). Ta, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi - I'm still hoping you will look at this proposal and give a view at my talk page or at Talk:Makinti Napanangka. This image issue appears to be the sticking point at FAC, so I am hoping to resolve it as soon as possble. I am reluctant to upload the actual picture that i have until I have an opinion from an experienced editor regarding the fair use rationale. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reflist

You can't go around reverting minor edits because you don't like them. Especially when there is a discussion going on. Debresser (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

Eubulides, it's time for you to be an admin (note that I didn't ask, I demanded :) Why? So you can add alt text to the TFA blurbs, which are protected pages. <tap, tap, tap> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, what's a TFA blurb? (I must confess being inspired by example—your example—in not being an admin.) Eubulides (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My example notwithstanding, there is a shortage of admins, making my decision appear a bit selfish :) Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2009 is an archive of the daily TFA blurbs; by clicking on an individual date, you go to the individual page. (Colin, you're not getting off scott free here; I know you're reading, and there aren't enough admins to keep up with medical articles, and we can't keep leaving everything to Graham, MastCell and TimVickers.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, also see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Blurbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

PS, I think the blurb pages are unprotected after they've run, but protected before, so only admins can edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to nominate you if you wish. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a young man called Eubulides

Who wrote the alt-text that no one sees.

To be an admin he sought,

Cause he felt that he ought

To fix the protected Main Pages.

-- Colin°^Talk 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support. Tony (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow up on the alt-text issue in protected blurbs at User talk:Juliancolton#Historical figures archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Request yet again

How does one treat satellite photos in alt text—see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season/archive2 (if you could leave advice there, that would be great). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I never cease to amaze

I can't even find the blippin' "Move" button at People speculated to have been autistic; there was consensus on the AFD for a new title, and we have to fix the template links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WTH. I don't know what's going on there; it must be an issue with my browser (I know, I know). I have no Move button, and although the AFD template has been removed from the article, it still shows there for me, even after a refresh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not your browser. The page was move protected last December. Need to ask an admin to do it. Eubulides (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how come I don't see any move protection at the top of the article (damnit, I'm incompetent). I'll ping DGG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: <tap, tap, tap> ... RFA, Eubulides ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I never see anything special about move protection at the top of the article. The only way I know an article is move protected is that I don't see a "move" button. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What new title do you have in mind? I can quickly take care of it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian; it's in the AFD; can't remember right now, and my computer SUCKS SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we take up a collection to get SG a decent computer? That'd improve Wikipedia a lot more than buying 0.25 more edge servers. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

<sigh>. Allright, here's the story. I got a new laptop for Christmas 2007; it's not that old :) But, I didn't have any input into choosing the computer, and decided that returning it wouldn't be worth the agida (having once returned a crass piece of jewelry). My laptop has the now infamous Windows Vista, a complete piece of junk which I have been fighting against for several years. Now, I'm in a holding pattern, as Windows 7 was just released. On the many occasions when I want to throw this hunk of junk off of my back deck, I resort to getting out my old dinosaur, which still works better ! Anyway, I hope an upgrade to Windows 7 (soon) will solve my problems. Then, I will also install a new browser, but there's no sense in doing it now, since I'm waiting for a new Operating System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with Windows 7; it can't be any worse than Vista, can it? Anyway, I was also given a laptop with Windows on it. I installed Ubuntu and it works much better for working on Wikipedia. Even if you need to use Windows for some other reason, it's easy to install a Linux distribution in a dual-boot setup and run Windows only when you need to. I boot Windows on my laptop when I need it, maybe once every six months or so now. I don't recommend Ubuntu for the very latest-and-greatest laptops (due to graphics and networking driver issues), but for older laptops it works better than Windows. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Julian and Eubulides. Anything they come up with could be junk; I know because I know one of the developers of IE <grrrr ... > I'm not going to make any changes just yet, lest I be put over the edge when I'm really busy. (When will I not be busy?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit anecdotal, but this BBC article goes through the routine and suggests a clean install may be safer. Sounds like they've got that a bit better organised than I feared, but it still involves reinstalling all old apps even if the passwords are saved. Either way, it could involve being out of action for hours, and if you're like me I can't even be bothered with switching off or restarting the computer for the usual updates so tend to put them off, let alone getting snow leopard. All in due time, but some things to do first! . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I know I need a clean install, and I will have it done by a hired gun (that's why I've resurrected my old dinosaur, and I promote on my desktop). It's even worse here: flippin' Fujitsu has some compatibiity problem that won't let me install Windows updates (sends me into chkdsk); flippin' Live One Care (which I also didn't choose) blocks everything I try to do; and something on this damn computer causes it to jump around when I'm trying to type, moving my cursor to different parts of the text (for instance, it just wiped out your sig, and I had to fix it). I need a brand new install. It stinks. And, to make matters worse when I travel (often), the darn laptop is huge, but I can't complain, because at least there was some thought put into the fact that I need a larger monitor because of my eyesight. I go through torture just to post to Wiki, and then someone mentions my edit count at arbcom :))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yippee ! Clean install of Windows 7 seems to be reworking, bookmarks recovered, just have to re-install some software. Whew! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thanks for your efforts to improve Ali.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border

I've summarised and spun out the Inner German border article as you suggested. Please take a look at the results (summarised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1#Article size update) and let me know whether you think this is sufficient. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Request For Mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Vaccine_controversy has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vaccine_controversy and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Sebastian Garth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

Can I ask you add Generation Rescue to your watchlist, please? If it's not already there. It's starting to look like I'm owning the article, and the truth is I really don't know much of anything about vaccines ... I'm just trying to keep referenced material from being deleted and unrefrenced material from being added. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

MilHist alt texts

I've been reviewing a few Class-A nominations. I guess we should start insisting on alt text ... no one will object, I presume? Tony (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't. Eubulides (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A concern only a grammar-nerd like me would think of: I'm finding a lot of alt texts cast as nominal groups alone, using "-ing. Here's an example:

Two people standing either side of a lowered border pole on a dirt road with a sign in the foreground.

IMO, it's more vivid to use a real, straight verb; for example:

Two people stand either side of a lowered border pole on a dirt road with a sign in the foreground.

I've always thought of present continuous tense as being more vivid, but it doesn't work as well in this context, when you're trying to make it easy for someone to conjure up the image in their mind's eye. It's almost worth making a "please consider" point in the MoS about it. Your thoughts? Tony (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I normally prefer present tense. There's a reasonable argument for the "-ing" but I still prefer the present tense here. I deliberately didn't cover this in WP:ALT because I thought it was too long anyway. It'd be fine with me to mention it in the MoS. It strikes me that the advice (whatever it is) should apply equally well to captions. Eubulides (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

George Vernon Hudson - Images on left or right?

Hello. Rule #1 of MOS:IMAGES#Images states: "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox" and the article doesn't appear long enough for right/left staggering of images. Upon re-thinking, I would do the same thing. I won't though. I doubt I'll visit that page again any time soon. I was just reading about DST this morning and found the left-aligned images in the lede very odd and distracting so I switched it. If you feel strongly about it, feel free to revert, but I actually can't think of any other articles that lead with left-aligned images. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Big favor please

Eubulides, if I may trouble you for a big favor, could you please add alt-text to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 28, 2009? I haven't developed the ability to write those thingies :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; you're a dear. I added it to the blurb page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you want to have a look: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 29, 2009 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

What would you use as alt text for an image/animation like this one?. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Daylight saving time article

Hi. You removed my links to Google Books for two references in the Daylight saving time article, saying the ISBN will get someone to the Google Books entry. Fair enough. But it's not precise and doesn't get you to the beginning of the book sometimes. To wit: http://books.google.com/books?id=rC6sAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover in the article goes to p.198 or so. Well, thanks for the update. Best wishes. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Google Books URLs are not reliable. For example, the URL you gave me did not send me to page 198; it sent me to the front cover. Many times, Google Books URLs send me to a blank screen, or a screen saying that I'm over limit. There are also some privacy concerns in their use. I don't recommend their use in Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to send you to p.198, I intended to send you to the front cover, which the ISBN link doesn't do. I've never had any trouble with Google Books and they're useful to get an idea of the book's content. Usually if you see blank pages at the front of the Google book, it's part of the digital scanning process and the real pages simply follow. I understand your point on this although we disagree. Best wishes. -- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. Although that particular URL does work for me now, our experiences with Google Books differ greatly. My problems aren't the blank pages often at the start of books; they are that I can't read the books at all, or can read only the title page, or something like that. I am often on a shared IP network and get back messages saying "quota exceeded" from Google. See, for example, Talk:Jackie Robinson #Google Books URLs. Other times I get back blank pages that are clearly not blank in the original, with no diagnostic whatsoever. Also, I suspect due to licensing reasons, Google Books URLs often work in some locations but not others, e.g., in the U.S. but not in the UK. See, for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Disasters of War/archive1. I can't recommend them. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your kind reply. I see your points. I've never had a problem with Google Books except once where the wrong book was pointed at. It's something I'll have to look into. Still, I think they're useful as an entree into a work. And, after all, Eubulides may have invented many paradoxes and criticized Aristotle. ;) Many thanks and best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Lower case

Thank you for enforcing the consensus. You are precisely the type of non-involved editor who should be doing that. And what about the consensus that this is not worth an edit? It is very hypocrite, to pick from consensus just those parts that you like, and ignore those that you don't. Well, people are know by their deeds. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To expand on solution for the Autism article: "disorder of neural development".

Hi Eubuildes,
I have an idea. Why don't you use neurodevelopmental disorder and then use a footnote describing what it means, saying something like: "is a type of neurological disorder that impairs neural development. Because of this, the cells in the brain are perplexed, and therefore, causes autistic people to process the milieu slower than neurotypical people." or something like that. Let me know what you think. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 19:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but leads should be short and should be easy to understand, and readers shouldn't have to look at footnotes to figure out what the text means. This is an encyclopedia designed for the general reader: it's not a research monograph designed for specialists. Let's put it this way: far more people know what "autism" is than what a "neurodevelopmental disorder" is, so any attempt to describe autism by saying that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder simply doesn't help that much. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, should I remove "stimming" and "stereotypic movements" that I made to the lead. Also, the other two disorders aren't only: PDD-NOS and Aspeger's syndrome, they're the most common though. There are four more, Childhood disintegrative disorder and Rett's syndrome. So I clarified that part in the lead. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please undo most of those changes. They have several problems:

• Reliable sources do not say that autism is characterized by self-stimulation. The idea that stereotypy is self-stimulation is a popular notion that is not well-supported.
• The lead doesn't need to introduce off-putting jargon like "stereotypic movements" when we have a perfectly reasonable introductory phrase "restricted and repetitive behavior" that is far more easily understood by the general reader. As per WP:LEAD, the lead should be kept short and should focus on the topic (autism) rather than on explaining medical jargon when that is not necessary.
• The replacement of "two other" with "two most common" was justified in the edit summary by "t is not the "only" two other spectrum disorders. the other two are: Rett's syndrome and Childhood Disintergrative Disorder". This is incorrect. The term "autism spectrum disorder" is not formally defined by the ICD or DSM, but it commonly is limited to autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS. Rett's and CDD are pervasive developmental disorders but not ASDs. This topic is discussed further (with reliable sources) in Autism #Classification.
• It might be OK to replace "lacks delays in cognitive development and language," with the simpler "is milder than autism", but both phrases shouldn't be in the lead: this is supposed to be about autism, not about Asperger's.

Eubulides (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, there was a new study that as of October the increase rates of Autism, changed from 1 in 150 children to 1 in 91 children. Barrack Obama and the US government call it a "health crises". Here is a link to one of the articles I found: [16]. Something useful to add to the autism article. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Other primary studies have also reported figures in the 1:100 range, but we can't report just this primary study at the expense of consensus reviews (see WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS and WP:RECENTISM for why). We can wait until a reliable review comes out on the topic; it shouldn't take too long. Eubulides (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I saw some numbers say 1 in 100 and some that said 1 in 91, and 1 in 58 boys are more common to be diagnosed with it than girls. I guess we'll have to wait until its mentioned in a scientific journal. My personal opinion, which is not scientifically proven yet, that the increase of Autism has to do with the mercury in the vaccines, also because many success stories have shown about gluten-free/casein diet therapy, e.g. autism activist Jenny McCarthy's son. Although, it can be a very biased theory. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Should I revert the edit for now? Also, I'm confused; if there is a problem with the length of the lead section then how did it meet the criteria for FAC? ATC ^{. Talk} 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to jump into the fray here but I must disagree with the comment "far more people know what autism is than what a neurodevelopment disorder is" On the contrary, almost no one knows what autism is, even the doctors argue about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.94 (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the alt work at "Ode on a Grecian Urn". I had prep work to fix it up for Mrathel but never got around to it. His listing of it and the instant oppose before I even had a chance to put up such things (as I've been busy today :) ) were starting to get a little annoying. I am already up 2 hours longer than what I should be. Night, and thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Alpine Chough

This article recently passed FA, although I'm confused as to how it passes on the quality of the Alternative text. All of the images, with the exception of the first, have inadequate alt-text; those detailing the bird just use "alpine chough" without describing the bird itself and the others, which show habitats, are un-descriptive. I don't believe the first image can be argued to compensate either. What's your opinion on this? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The alt text for that article is minimalist, and I think it would improve the article to expand it somewhat. WP:ALT #Context says "If the same person or object appears in many images of an article, later images' alt text can assume that the reader has already read the first image's alt text and caption.", and that principle is being used in the article (perhaps over-used), the idea being that the visually impaired reader shouldn't have to read N nearly-identical descriptions of what alpine choughs look like, but instead should be told what's new in each image. Eubulides (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that might be the angle it was being taken at. My only concern, as you point out, is that the principle is being over-used. I shall take up the issue on the discussion page of the article and/or on the talk page of the article's primary contributor; thank you for explaining the policy. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hay rake

I uploaded a picture called hay rake to wikimedia commons not realizing it was the ame name as the low es one i put on the article hay rake a long time ago; will the new one replace the old one automatically eventually? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

THEN; THEN; I went to the wikipedia file page for the low res one and went to upload new version and on hte article it's STILL the old one. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please copy all the info in the file page from File:Hay rake.jpg (including old version) to commons:File:Hay rake.jpg, and then request that File:Hay rake.jpg be deleted. If you don't know how to do that, please just wait; I marked File:Hay rake.jpg with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and somebody will get around to doing that. In the future, to avoid this problem, please just upload to Commons. Eubulides (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; here's maybe an even better picture:

Alt text needed for navbox

Template:CourtsEnglandWales. I think it would be better to have you, the alt text expert, write it, as the picture is rather intricate. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That image doesn't seem to convey any useful info that is not already present elsewhere in the template, so I marked it with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. If you really want alt text for it, you can steal some from the lead of Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Eubulides (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine as is. Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Essential

Was this another of your essential edits? Or are you trying to wp:own this page and other documentation pages of templates? Debresser (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As my edit summary says, I reverted what appeared to be a test edit: that edit caused the documentation page to in some sense disagree with itself, as the page uses 30em in its example of how to go multicolumn. Of the last 50 edits to that documentation page, you've made five and I've made three, so it's surprising to see the accusations of ownership in the previous comment. Now, to turn the question around, is this thread essential? Eubulides (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is essentially flawed: the number of edits has nothing to do with it. Owning is not allowing other people's edits on pages, which is what I have seen you do twice now. This thread is very necessary, to make sure you are aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Now that you are, I am content. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix needed

Eubulides, you did something once that fixed the table of contents/heading at WT:FAC; could you do the same at WT:FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:FAR had a different problem. I fixed the problem I saw: does the fix work for you? Eubulides (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does: thanks so much! Maybe someday I'll learn these things. Maybe not :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Eubulides—ta for barnstar: kind of you. Tony (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I appreciate the note on Reliable Sources. I will read through it. The asperger's page is one that is pretty important yet is presently in a sort of mess. Besides grotesque grammar the article paints those with asperger's as pathetic sociopaths. I'm a psychologist and I absolutely hate this article. Anyone reading it would be stuck with worse than a lack of knowledge; they would have distorted knowledge. Gingermint (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Today

Smile! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PubMed

Eudubides, why is PubMed no longer showing the "Review" tab? How can I determine if an article is a review without having full text? And do we need to rewrite Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches to cover this change in PubMed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(allow me to butt in). I think the new PubMed is trying too hard but probably constrained by accessibility requirements that keep the interface clunky. The search results still show the word "Review" as part of the summary. When looking at an abstract page, if there is a "[+] Publication Types" section at the bottom (like PMID 19535814), then expand this and it will show Review if it is one and something else otherwise (like PMID 19490051). If there is no Publication Types section then I suspect this means PubMed hasn't classified it (like PMID 19793510). If you create an account with PubMed, you can set various preferences. One of these is called "Abstract Supplemental Data" which if set to Open will expand the "[+] Publication Types" section all the time. Another preference you may find useful is to colour highlight the search terms in the results. Colin°^Talk 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Colin: that helps. Now I'm concerned that we need to rewrite the Dispatch, since it explained how to locate reviews. Arrrrrgh ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can just update the "Searching PubMed" in the Dispatch? I'm unsure to what extent we should alter such an old article, but I can't see the harm in doing so in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done that, mostly the NCBI had just moved stuff about in the interface. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While we're venting about PubMed, its new interface doesn't work with the latest Firefox: the query box overlays the output of the query, so that you can't see the first few lines of your query results. I am reduced to using some other browser whenever I want to use PubMed. I wish the guys at NCBI tested their stuff better for compatibility. I've filed a bug report about this with the PubMed guys but they are even slower to fix things than the Mediawiki developers are, so I'm not holding out much near-term hope. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

nanenanebooboo (I'm still on IE8 :) Thanks, Tim-- I'll go have a look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Eubulides. I am willing to mediate this case. If you are ready to proceed, let's begin on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

James Joyce

The original author isn't around, and several are working to restore it to FA status. No hurry, but would you be able to add alt text some time? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How's that? It was a bit intimidating to write text re Joyce, so I took a bit more time than usual. Hope Joyceans won't be offended by the result. Eubulides (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the extra time on it, Eubulides; you didn't have to get there so quickly ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Upper Pine Bottom State Park

	<font=3> Thanks again for your checking of alt text - Upper Pine Bottom State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

pictures for Cologne War

I added a picture for the Cologne War. It has alt text, but do you want to make sure it is sufficient? Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looked good to me; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ctr-click

Yes that was odd ... must be a bug, but it the first time I've seen it, I am using wikiEd and the popups gadget. Ctrl click on a link or template in the edit window opens it in a new window, so the text must've come from thereabouts, thanks for fixing it I was trying - but couldn't myself ( ended up with half a page of ctrl-clicks! ) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 06:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic is Quackery

Chiropractic is a fraud, admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.226.158 (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversial

I'm getting tired of this IP hopping jerk who keeps attacking the chiropractic (and other) article. There is one edit, which you properly reverted, but which is a true statement. What we need is a good source to back it up and then include it. I can't think of a better descriptive word than "controversial". Its whole history has been plagued by controversy, and the controversy isn't over yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Citation/core/sandbox

Please do not discard the work I am currently doing in {{Citation/core/sandbox}}. Discussion is here. The changes I made have been tested and appear to be ready for merging. I was going to rework the |Place= parameter first but it appears I will be rather busy for the next week or so with an ArbCom case and will not be able to rework that parameter until afterwards. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'm trying to fix a much smaller problem and should be out of the water soon. Eubulides (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. If you want to go ahead and merge my changes when you do an editprotected feel free (you'll probably want to link to the discussion I linked to above). I linked to the test pages in the discussion I linked above as well and if you feel like it, I could always use an extra set of eyes to look it over to make sure I didn't overlook something. I had also planned to write a summary on the talk page describing the changes before I did an editprotected request but it doesn't look like I have the time now. I usually try to make a batch of changes at once when it comes to templates transcluded across so many articles in order to lessen the impact of the changes on the job queue. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Sorry, but you want me to discuss the reversion of a change on the talk page, when you yourself reverted my change itself, without discussing it on the talk page. You just went ahead and changed it, without any discussion. You then put a warning on my page, when the same warning applies to you. Where is your discussion? You just deleted my change without any discussion whatsover. Zanze123 (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Take the discussion to Template talk:Alternative medical systems #Orthopathy. You apparently don't understand WP:BRD. You were BOLD, Eubulides reverted, now YOU need to start a discussion about why you think the content should remain, and do it on THAT talk page. You will get responses there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sly and The Family Stone

Thanks so much for the help there ! Elcobbola located another image. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

ISO8601 dates

I noticed a few of your edits reverting date format changes dates. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement whatsoever for dates within cites to be in the ISO 8601 format. The only requirement, per WP:MOSNUM, is that date formats are consistent within the body and within the refs section. That being the case, I have unified the dates in some articles in accordance with same, as I did here. In that particular case, the date format of the references section was mixture of dmy, mdy, and ISO. They have now been brought into line with the main body of the article. Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN is the operating principle that I was using; it's a good principle. My own relatively small set of changes were not intended to undo Rich_Farmbrough (talk · contribs)'s rewriting of over 1,000 articles in the space of a few hours: I was more trying to get a feeling for how bad the problem was (it was pretty bad). I hope that that attempt at massively changing existing article style doesn't set a precedent. Eubulides (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I notice that you did not simply revert. I would agree with you to the degree that WP:RETAIN should be a guiding principle. However, 8601 is not a default format per WP:MOSNUM, and when there is clearly a mish-mash of date formats and no uniformity, the first default of alignment must be to the date format of the rest of the article, if there is one. If that is indeterminate, then I think that's where WP:RETAIN cuts in, because I certainly don't see how anyone could imagine it to mean leave the mish-mash of dates untouched. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations need not, and typically should not, use the same date formats as the rest of the article. It's standard for citations to use more-compact notation than the rest of the article, not only in dates, but also in author names, journal names, etc. There is no need to use the same exact notation in both areas, and there are good arguments for using more-compact notations in citations. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. You are correct that there is no need to use the same exact notation in both areas, and the wording of WP:MOSNUM implicitly allows the use you described. However, if you are insisting that the refs section 'must' be in 8601, then I think you need to bring the issue up there, as it's not something we can decide in caucus on your talk page. Cheers, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not insisting that all references sections must use YYYY-MM-DD, and I think that any such requirement would be inappropriate. However, it's also inappropriate to automatically change hundreds of articles away from the YYYY-MM-DD format, without discussion or consensus, which is the action that started this thread. Eubulides (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure glad to hear that. When there is a mix of date formats in an article's refs section, I would have no qualms in aligning date formats to those of the body of the article, per consistency in WP:MOSNUM already mentioned above. In those circumstances, I would not expect to have to seek consensus to make the necessary changes because the change would have been mandated by a style guideline. What I would also point out to you is that the preponderance of 8601 dates in the refs section was due to auto-formatting requirements within the {{citation}} template. That function having now been disabled, you now see the ISO dates as input, instead of dmy or mdy, in accordance with your preferences.

I'm aware of the history. I urge you not to go through articles replacing all dates in references with some format other than YYYY-MM-DD simply because you find a single date somewhere in the article in some other format. Using YYYY-MM-DD in references, and some other format in the body, is a very common and accepted style. I realize that you strongly dislike the YYYY-MM-DD format, but please bear in mind that other editors like it, and please don't look for gratuitous opportunities to replace it with a format you like better. Eubulides (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text check needed

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Arsenal F.C./archive1. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you comment on the alt text issue I raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dan Povenmire/archive1? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Journal papers

I'm at UConn Health Center, Academic Research Library, and will also be here tomorrow (Wednesday) and Friday. If anyone needs any research papers, now's the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Amador Valley High School

Hello Eubulides! Amador Valley High School is up for FA review again - I was wondering if you would be interested in revisiting the article and perhaps leaving your comments. Thank you! - Deltawk (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore/archive2 alt text

Well, the geniuses who made this infobox is pretty much making it hard to have an alt text placed. I will try something out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What you did works. I also added the tags you mentioned to the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

I wrote some alt text for the age stages template as you suggested but it doesn't seem to show up.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if it works for you I expect it will work for anyone who knows how to use it then. Thanks! Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins' noticeboard

Hello, Eubulides. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note to myself, this notice is now archived. Eubulides (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical genetics of Jews

I can't work out why the Harvard citation template isn't working. Any ideas? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Cite book}} etc. don't support Harvard cites by default; one must add |ref=harv. This is because adding |ref=harv by default broke too many pages (invalid HTML). I fixed it. Eubulides (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IPA templates

Hi,

I reverted your fix to IPA-hu. There was a typo somewhere & the coding was displayed on the pages it was transcluded to. The other IPA templates I checked look fine. kwami (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

I've asked some questions in a new section titled "New approach." Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oopsie

I missed that one![17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

GA class medicine articles

(cc'd to Colin, Fvasconcellos and Eubulides)

Per User talk:Geometry guy#GA class medicine articles, I've started User:SandyGeorgia/GA class medicine articles. The goal is not a complete GA reassessment, rather to give Geometry guy a list of the worst offenders per WP:MEDRS (and I'm also noting the GA date and other issues as I go). If you'd like to help, feel free to edit the page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		for showing the utmost patience and endurance when upholding policy. Colin°Talk 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If there were a barnstar of superhuman patience, I would definitely tack that on here. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your excellent work at FAC. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Talking points

Hawaii hotspot talking points.

• Ok, for File:Hawai'i.jpg in the info box I modified the alt past See adjacent text. Didn't really know how to avoid reitterating the caption without expanding the ref, so I did this ; trick thing by elaborating on the caption. Good or needs improvement?
• The alt text for File:WorldCrustalAge - Hawaii hotspot.png should mention the overall pattern of older crust in the eastern Pacific and younger in the western, which is obvious to the sighted reader but not to the visually impaired.

Modified it to say this. ResMar 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• There's one "Photo of" and one "Picture of", and now there's a new "A depiction of". These phrases all convey essentially zero useful information, and should all be removed so as not to waste a blind reader's time. Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar^Hohoho 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Taken from the FAC (other striken things left out). ResMar 02:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As a side-note, is there anything against leaving periods out from behind sentance fragments? I see this a lot in the article and I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. ResMar 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Those changes all look good; thanks. In captions and alt text the usual rule is to not put a period at the end if the entire caption is a sentence fragment, and to put a period at the end of a leading fragment if it is followed by other text (the other text must be a series of sentences). I think this is described in WP:CAPTION and WP:ALT somewhere but am too lazy to verify it now. Eubulides (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So no peroids? Heh, didn't know. Thanks. So, good for ALT clearance? :) ResMar^Hohoho 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK, but I would review it one more time (see the Altviewer output) as a sanity check. I found the typos "hewn in black" and "Hawaiiʻn" and you might find others. Eubulides (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ALT question

vertical straight (caption)

vertical straight (caption)

Just a question about ALT nature. Now both images do not apply the thumbnail function so no caption will be displayed normally. But when the caption parameter is typed the text will popup like we do with the alt parameter. Do these 2 cases have any important difference so the alt parameter is preferable over the caption parameter? Thx. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between the two cases, as you've noted, is that the latter specifies a title attribute for the link to the image, and the former does not. The title attribute is what tooltips use: it is intended for additional, nonessential information, and browsers are allowed to ignore the title attribute. A screen reader typicallys ignores the title attribute if alt text is present, so the two images will appear the same to a visually impaired user. For {{BS-overlap}} my feeling is that it's more useful to also specify the title text, so that the tooltip is displayed to sighted users. Eubulides (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will use ZH Wikipedia as the testing ground because all BS templates there are not protected. In fact I wanna take the chance to extend the EN WP:ROUTE overlap function from currently 1 layer to 2~5-layer. But for some weird reason the ALT parameter cause popup text of the overlapped icon lot not displaying. So I've to change back to the CAPTION parameter which de facto appear the same visually at least. You may check {{superimpose2}} and {{superimpose2/base}}. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at my recent change to {{BS-overlap}}, which (if I understand your problem correctly) addresses the problem? Please see my comment dated 07:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC) in Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template #Alt text in route diagrams. Eubulides (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

I was given your name by a friend. Would you be able to look at the images on Vancouver and perhaps fill in the |alt= requirements? We're overhauling the article to be ready for WP:FAC in the next 2 weeks. Thanks a bunch! Mkdw^talk 23:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Canadian provinces and territories by area/archive1

Needs an alt text check. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Could you put in alt text for Template:Canada provinces map? Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

You have helpfully fixed a template and told us how to do alt text in an image map, all for Jay Pritzker Pavilion. Now I have tried writing alt text there, but feel it is too prolix - would you mind seeing if it looks OK? A comment on the article's talk page would be fine. Thanks again fro your previous help and in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I have tried tightening the alt text some and have added it to the template and image map missing alt text. Will have someone check for typos and spelling. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Stimming and Stereotypy

Big mess made there; before I work on cleanup, I'm unsure if there is any good reason for four terms to be discussed under one article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet FAC

The issue of weight loss and diabetes has arisen again due to some material added by an IP. You mentioned this at peer review. Do you have access to the review(s) on this area. It takes me a wee while (and not guaranteed) to get hold of papers that aren't free online. Perhaps we could use the article talk page to work out some new text or just be BOLD and go for it. My current impression is that the use of a low-carb ketogenic diet for diabetes is at the research stage and the offical diabetes organisations don't approve yet. Wrt weight loss, there are lots of low-carb (and high protein, which the KD isn't) diets and the induction phase of the Atkins diet is ketogenic but the later phases aren't. Again, do any official bodies recommend such diets? There are lots of reasons for thinking they aren't healthy even if they achieve one particular goal. I would like the main focus of these topics to be at low-carbohydrate diet and diabetic diet but we do need to mention something here. Colin°^Talk 14:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Check alt text for February 2009 tornado outbreak

Please? Showtime2009 (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright look at it now. Showtime2009 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Mayall FAC

Hello Eubulides,

I'd love to get your copy edit help on the FAC for the astronomer Nicholas Mayall which you looked at before for alt-text. If you have some time, please come take a look and make any improvements you can.

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

BS-overlap revision

{{BS3/sandbox|STR| STR|STR |}} {{BS3/sandbox|STR| STR|STR |alt3=TEST}} {{BS3/sandbox|STR| STR|STR |L3=TEST}} {{BS3/sandbox|STR| STR|STR |alt3=TEST|L3=TEST}}

Just in case the staff asking for wider consensus of the revision, you can refer the 5-layer overlaping to a previous discussion in the archive. There were at least 2 major WP:ROUTE contributors supported the change. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing. I just adpoted the whole {BS-alt} to Chinese WP and found out that {BS-overlap} no longer allows editor to fill the BS# row template parameter column with whitespace after the icon ID to make the route diagram code layout "organised". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Is this a minor annoyance or a real problem that needs fixing? Eubulides (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In Chinese WP, many editors have such habit of stacking whitespaces, so... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, is there an easy fix to {{BS-overlap}}}? Eubulides (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely we need to modify the code of |link#= in {BS-overlap/sandbox}. I think we need to apply the #if: command which will ignore the whitespaces after the entry. I'm trying it in Chinese WP, but you know, the code is a bit tricky. :P -- 09:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this patch fix things for you? It seems to work for the test case at the start of this talk-page section. Eubulides (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange, it only works on English WP but not Chinese WP. I've purged and refreshed the page, maybe it takes time to make the patch effective. Anyway, thank you so much. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry I missed 1 line to copy to Chinese WP. It works now! Thanks again ^_^ -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GeneReviews support in Template:Infobox disease

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Harvid

I think that your new {{Harvid}} template has most, if not all, the functionality of {{SfnRef}}, which was created exactly a month earlier. Perhaps you and User:John Cardinal could discuss merging these? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Anchor/doc edits

Hi. I am slightly confused by your recent edit. I first discovered the anchor template when it was recommended for use as a placeholder within an article pointed to by an anchored redirect. The original instructions were to place within the heading text (I'm glad this policy has now changed) and for the Anchor to use the same name as pointed to from the redirect -- the idea being that if anyone changed the heading text in the future, the anchor would remain as a link from the redirect. Your latest change effectively prohibits this.

EdJogg (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying, but does my further edit help explain things? Eubulides (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It was very late when I wrote that!

Your addition is certainly clear, and should help other editors who remember the much older documentation for Anchor which had suggested the embedded usage as correct. Your change makes it very obvious that the old advice is now incorrect.

OK, let's have another go at the main point. Where you have an anchored redirect (a redirect to a section) such as Redirect[[ArticleX#HeadingY]], the advice somewhere was to indicate at the heading in the article that it was an anchor from a redirect, so that editors did not change the heading text without also changing the corresponding redirect. Before discovering 'Anchor' I was doing so with an embedded comment after the heading, but these were often removed, and getting the wording right was hard. The alternative suggested solution was to add an {{Anchor}} in the heading itself, using the same text as the heading, namely ==HeadingY{{Anchor|HeadingY}}==, such that it no longer mattered if HeadingY was changed to HeadingZ, since the unmodified anchor and redirect would remain linked. There was a further suggestion that multiple anchors could be included in the same way, if this would be useful. Since you have now highlighted the problem with an Anchor duplicating a Heading, I think I'll need to find the documentation for redirects and see if it suggests the creation of a unique anchor for the redirect, or what.

So, I'm not sure I'm actually asking anything more of you now, unless you feel inclined to investigate the issue regarding anchored redirects...

EdJogg (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I went hunting. The page section I was thinking of was Wikipedia:Redirects#Redirects to page sections, which also has a section on anchors following. You will see that these need updating to match the current advice in {{Anchor}}.

EdJogg (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I updated it. Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That was well worth drawing to your attention. Thanks. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cutting edge research

Hi,

I edited the autism page with some comments that are from cutting edge researchers, but, as far as I know, unpublished research, at least, I have not seen it published.

While I respect the need to not put junk in Wikipedia, the comments edited were out of date and somewhat general in themselves. Also, the links used for support of the edited comments were not fully accessible, in that they lead to science journal articles, (generally good) but do not allow non-subscribers to view more than abstracts of those articles,(bad) and the abstracts do not directly support the comments that cite them.

The information I am getting is probably top of the line, cutting edge stuff, that, unlike some things published in Wikipedia, should not be denied the readers just because it's not yet out in the literature yet. Why hobble Wikipedia and it's readers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.94 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot accept cutting edge, unpublished research; we need reliable published sources to support claims in an encyclopedia. (See the verifiability policy.) It's standard practice on Wikipedia to cite the contents of science journal articles, even when they (unfortunately) are not freely readable. Review articles are best, and for autism there are plenty of recent reviews, so there should not be a problem finding good sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) for the sort of sources we are looking for here. Eubulides (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several things you should know if you don't already: First, there is a tremendous amount of research going on in autism, neurology, and immunology. Comments such as "such and such has not been found" are easily made obsolete by the new research. Also, not all findings are published. The findings I reported were made by the leader of a major reserch study, in a formal presentation to study participants. But, the change to comments was not on some currently controversial topic either. I am not sure which change you are responding to, but if you actually followed research, even published research, in this area you would know that biomarkers for subsets of autistics have been found. Not all the biomarkers I mentioned, but enough to show that the stuff I edited was obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.94 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this discussion is about Autism I copied it to Talk:Autism #Cutting edge research and replied to it there. Eubulides (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your work and persistence on the Baker Street map

		The Template Barnstar
		You took a largely inaccessible railway map template and worked with it and its many child templates to help make it much more readable. Your persistence when others (even myself, to be honest) would have let the issue go, and your overall work on alt text, has surely helped many readers and shall not go unnoticed. Thank you, and please keep it up! --an odd name 16:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

You recently created Category:Articles overusing colors as a redirect to Category:Articles overusing colours; but the latter category does not exist. If you meant to redirect to a different target, please fix the link. Otherwise, this invalid redirect will soon be deleted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (pre-1911)

Give me a note when you decide to support or not. Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me as this is the second time I have contacted you, but can you give your support? I know you primarily roam FAC's to help with alt text and others, but this is the 2nd time you've been around. Can you support it? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't say "Support" unless I've had time to carefully read the article and check out the sources, which I rarely have time to do. Sorry. If I find time to do that for this article, I'll definitely comment more. Eubulides (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hey, if you get the chance, could you review Wikipedia:Peer review/1939 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1 for alt text? Thanks in advance and happy holidays! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't capitalize reflist?

I noticed you reverted part of a change made by SmackBot on Generation Rescue. It's probably going to just come back and capitalize it again later. Is there a reason why you think it should be lowercased? It's done the same change on many other articles (probably thousands). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also something I'd like to add: If you want a response from the author, you should leave a message on his talk page. The bot just archives entries to its talk page. Eugeniu B +1 21:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's weird. If SmackBot is just going to delete messages without comment, then why bother to leave messages at all? Also, SmackBot shouldn't be messing with template-name capitalization: it's irrelevant to appearance and it should respect editor preference. I left a comment at User talk:Rich Farmbrough #Please leave capitalization of template names alone. Eubulides (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings and all that ...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Article expansion request

Hi Eubulides, I wanted to know after the holidays if you could help me expand the article I created a few months ago, Dr. Bobby Newman, PhD, which currently is a stub class article. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt text template update

Ciao, Eubulides. I wonder as the project's unofficial alt text guru if you could take a look at {{Infobox writers awards}} and see if it is alt text compliant? I'm not sure how to add/test the requisite fields. Cheers,  Skomorokh  17:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Eubulides (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have done the trick! Mahalo,  Skomorokh  08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching those missing tags on the article. Any comments or suggestions on the alt text is always appreciated.... Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Justus...

See diff. I've just removed the portal from Justus for now, but whatever... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)