Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (assistance) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance).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

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

Request for help in cooling tensions in non-copyvio case

If I am posting this in the wrong place, please help me direct my request appropriately.

I recently encountered a diff where a user (Ml4744) added material from the mathmaniac.com website. In retrospect, I should have asked the user for confirmation of identity first. Instead, I reverted the addition and placed a possible copyvio notice (using the template {{subst:uw-copyright|Ratio}}) on the user's page. As it turns out (and I now have email confirmation of this), the username Ml4744 was registered by the owner of mathmaniac.com, who was willingly adding her own material to Wikipedia. However, she now asserts that I am making false accusations and trying to block her. I apologized and removed the possible copyvio notice, and in email she rejected my apologies, claiming that I am harassing her, trying to hide my "accusations", and trying to get her account blocked, and she asked how I got her email address (which is publicly available on the mathmaniac.com website). It seems that anything I do to try to cool the situation makes her angrier at me (I don't care about this) and angrier at Wikipedia (I care about this). She has asked that I cease contact with her, and I respect this request. However, I would like to know if there is anything that can be done to calm the situation besides what I am doing right now, that is, ceasing all contact.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Michael Slone (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, ownership and licensing are two different things. Unless the website in question specifically has GFDL licensing, compatible with Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if the owner is involved or not in the copying: we can't use the material. Looking at the site in question, I can't see any copyright notice at all, which isn't good enough.
Second, the website in question seems to be a how-to site, and Wikipedia is not a textbook. In any case, it's not an authoritative site meeting our reliable sources standard, at least to me. (I've not looked at what text is being copied across, however.)
Third, to respond to your question, the best thing for you to do is not to contact this editor, ever again, under any circumstances. Don't apologize further, explain, post a request, or otherwise directly deal with the editor. Instead, I suggest you ask ask another editor to review the situation, or post a note at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, asking someone there to review the situation and contact the editor if appropriate. And no, I don't think it's appropriate for you to ask another editor to apologize on your behalf - if she doesn't want to assume good faith, then another editor showing up to talk about your well-meant intentions isn't (in my opinion) going to help things out. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List styles: dashes

I was wondering what the proper style is for lists that begin with a keyword (a song title, for instance) followed by a description. Specifically, I'm asking about Star Wars: X-Wing - Space Combat Simulator. The article features several lists with titles of missions/expansions/editions followed by descriptions and separated by medium-length dashes. Is this proper style? Are definition lists called for in this case? SharkD (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Submitting new article--how long to appear

I submitted my first article tonight. When I hit "save changes" my browser takes me right back to the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact title" page.

Is there a review process, is this a malfunction, or am I doing something wrong? The article is "James F. Adams", by the way.

216.82.174.214 (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous users are not able to create articles. If you would like to submit a new article you must create an account. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
James F. Adams was just created, and exists. There is no review process. Try refreshing or clearing your cache. –Pomte 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried again after posting this question. I'm not sure why, but even though I had logged in the wiki server treated me as an anonymous user and I didn't realize it until I came back, looked at this talk page and saw an IP number where my signature should have been. I've been more careful and haven't had the problem since.

Happy New Year to all!

ChrisClukey (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A welcoming committee?

Yo what's up fellow wikipedians, I like to welcome people into Wikipedia with that temple that says Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, and the Yada Yada<-that's a joke right there ->...is there a welcome group for that? Thanks Niyant (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Users contribs need checking for copyvios

I came across mention of copyvios in Talk:Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)‎. I looked into it and there are some quite serious issues here. The copyvio material was added by User talk:Robert Alexander Inch over several edits here. As you can see a large amount of unwikified material was added. A reference was given to the site [1] where most of it originates but the site says the material is copyright 2001 and no where at all does it says it was licensed under GFDL. Looking through the users contribs I found at least two other articles where large amount of material was added which I suspect is copyvio. I have warned this user but the user seems to have disappeared anyway. Someone needs to take a look thru this users contribs and deleted all the copyvio of suspect material I would do it myself but I don't have the time. Sadly, since it was added in mid 2007 and it's been a while since then, a lot of editors hard work in improving this copyvio material is going to be completely wasted. Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying items from other talk pages?

Hey. This is sort of an odd request, but something I just noticed. Basically, I - and a few other users - have been dealing with an editor that's been rather disruptive, largely by injecting POV edits. For awhile, Elonka and I were working on the page where this SPA editor was active (Moneybomb), and she and I had a conversation on our talk pages. While randomly wandering around, I saw that the SPA editor has added our conversation to his talk page, claiming a conspiracy. Should this be removed? Should I take this to AN/I or something? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If the editor had added personal attacks or other negative comments, you might have a case to post a warning and/or remove those comments. But the edit you cite simply added a heading ("Moneybomb Conspiracy?") to what was copied. I don't think that rises to the level of a personal attack (note the question mark), and suggest that you drop the matter rather than add fuel to the fire by raising the matter at AN/I. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Where to discuss topic that covers a category of articles?

I'd like to initiate a discussion about articles in the computer software category, and an attempt to introduce some common language across the articles. It will take a paragraph or two to pose my question/issue, so I don't want to post here unless it's the right place. Is it? thanks. Leotohill (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several WikiProjects for computing listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science#Computer_science. Does one of them sound like the area you're interested in? You can go to the particular WikiProject page and start a discussion on its Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Peculiar Font In Wikipedia

I recently acquired a new computer (still XP, though) and have noticed Wikipedia has been displaying this strange font (here). I have copied + pasted it into Wordpad and MS Word, which both say it's Times New Roman, when it clearly is not. I'm using IE7. I don't use ClearType (I feel it looks ridiculously blurry), though I use the "Standard" font smoothing Windows has, as seen in the display control panel. I've checked, and IE is not using a user defined font - it is using the designated fonts of websites. I have heard Wikipedia defaults to Sans Serif fonts, I have MS Sans Serif and Microsoft Sans Serif, so I don't know why it is showing this strange font. Any idea what's wrong? Thanks. 70.111.15.167 (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The imageshack link you provided didnt open or appears to be dead. Could you please provide a new link so that we may see to it! I will kill the 'I' in You 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsasin8 (talk • contribs)
The image link works fine for me. I don't know what's causing it though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the font my computer defaults to if it tries to display all text in an Asian font. In Firefox, try View > Character Encoding ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 22:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Devices that tell people the time

If anyone here can think straight (and isn't made to drool by magazine adverts) and has some spare time, the various articles on watch companies (etc.) would benefit from "help" (editorial machetes). I've been looking through several, and have found them to be quite grotesquely, indeed hilariously bad. Rolex (ugh!) took me to Rolex Cosmograph, which starts: The legendary Rolex Cosmograph "Daytona", known simply as the Daytona, is perhaps the single most iconic Rolex of them all. If I could use the word "iconic" with a straight face (I can't), I might call that the most iconically awful opening sentence I've ever seen in a Wikipedia article. ("Legendary", even.) The article continues: Interestingly, these original Daytona's were not in demand when produced, and were available for appallingly little money, but today are referred to as the "Holy Grail" of collectible watches and fetch astronomical prices at auction, purchased by avid collectors in the know and other cognoscenti. Which may be even more iconically legendary, or legendarily iconic.

Well, time to take off my ¥3000 Casio wonder and go to bed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to the revision before an editor added that a couple of days ago. –Pomte 16:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha! This made me think we could maybe have a contest somewhat like the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest to find the worst of all peacock-laden, corpspeak, Wikipedia leads (and then, of course eradicate them with prejudice). I was just going to comment that someone had already reverted the watch article to a less intensely drooling version after your tagging, but edit conflicted with him above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Totally brilliant idea, as long as it lives somewhere under WP:BJAODN, though I understand that some humorless militants (yeah, yeah, WP:CIVIL...) want BJAODN archived or even deleted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Strapping a gas mask tight over my face, I entered a similar flatus-chamber and hacked away. But I chose to leave in the Olympian the torch of the founders of the company continues to be carried by their successors in hot line. Funny how the article manages to avoid saying whether the company actually makes its own movements or instead (like the great majority of watch "makers") buys them in from one of a small number of suppliers and then does more or less (or no) fiddling to them.

Really, anyone else with a morbid sense of humor should try one or two of the other offerings in Category:Watchmakers. (I'd guess that Category:Luxury brands is similar.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is a "hot line", I wonder? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a "cold line", I suppose. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 22:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New Card Game - Is this suitable for entry into Wiki?

I have devised what I believe to be a new card game, to which I have found nothing similar. I won't go into great detail here, suffice to say it is a mixture of Rummy and Cribbage, and as such I call it "Crib Rummy".

I am asking if this would be suitable article to post, as it is a game I have invented (or believe to have invented), and barring rules and information pertaining to the original games from which it is devised, I have no external or verifiable sources whatsoever.

Regards.

CarrotIronfoundersson (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A newly invented game is probably inappropriate for an article. As you say, there are no external sources of information about the game. Joyous! | Talk 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability - a new card game you invented isn't yet notable. Tempshill (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird articles list

A long time ago I used to browse and enjoy an article, whose name I now have forgotten, that was a list of weird article topics. It wasn't BJAODN. The Antonov A-40 flying tank was one of the entries. Any pointers? Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You might be looking for Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Tra (Talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The dent that magically appears on a horses neck........

Yes, does anyone know what it is called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.200.172 (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried the miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with fake-IP vandal

Hi, I'm an administrator in Vietnamese Wikipedia (vi:User:Tmct). We've been suffering from repeatedly vandalism by someone in Vietnam using fake-IPs, who keeps replacing acticles' content with insulting words.

We've been dealing with this vandal by locking IPs, but I found that locking fake-IPs is quite useless since the vandal uses a different one for each series of attacks.

Have you got any experience of this sort of vandalism? Any advice on how to deal with it? Many thanks. Tmct (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By locking, I assume you mean blocking? Here, it is dealt with by WP:semi-protection. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the vandal attacks any series of arbitrary articles. The pattern is not some particular articles but any series of articles, for example those in some category or newly-registered users' talk pages, or simply articles that happened to appear on the "Recent changes" page. So WP:semi-protection wouldn't help.

Is there any way to automatically block or delay edits performed by IPs that contain certain words like "F*", or edits that replace the whole article's content? Something similar to stopping edits containing URL included in spam black list. Tmct (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have User:Cluebot, a robot who reverts edits removing large amounts of text or inserting profanity, but don't know what could prevent such edits in the first place.
You could also consider a range block, but that's only feasible if the fake IPs are coming from the same range. Even then, it could, and probably will, affect innocent users. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We've been already using range blocking, which seems to help lengthening intervals between series of attacks from 2 minutes to about 7 minutes or more. Still, blocking one minute too late means a dozen more articles damaged. If only this watching and blocking could be done automatically.
So some of us are considering blocking all anonymous edits, which is quite bad even if it is for a short time only, since many people are contributing anonymously. Any suggestion to avoid such a harsh measure? Tmct (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at some random IPs that you've blocked and that match your description - they are all blocked as open proxies at en.Wikipedia. Normally open proxies are blocked indefinitely (at least here and at de.Wikipedia), so I think this would be the only and best solution to handle this. Range blocks are ineffective to resolve this due to the widespread number of ranges. See also meta:WikiProject on open proxies - I don't know how far advanced you are on handling open proxies at vi.Wikipedia, as it is impossible for me to look this up without understanding any word ;). Regards --Oxymoron83 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot for the information. Tmct (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image alignment

The map image in the infobox at the article Dunkirk appears incorrectly for me, both in Firefox and IE. Does it appear this way for others? I looked at potential sources of the problem, but couldn't see what was wrong when I examined the article, image and template. CIreland (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Too lazy to take a screenshot, but the map is at the bottom, leaving a huge blank space above it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Vitrit

A diagram in the article on incandescent light bulbs identifies insulation at the base of a lightbulb as "vitrit". What is this stuff? A Google search brings up nothing, other than a site that requires you to pay to access it, which identifies it as a mineral:

http://www.mindat.org/min-23479.html

These links seem to be associating it with coal:

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/102_1/03_class.html

http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/Therapies/Germanium/b7.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.126.158 (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You will likely to have better results asking this question at the science section of Wikipedia's reference desk. This page is for assistance with using Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's good to post a note on the talk/discussion page associated with the article. Even if you don't get an immediate response, an editor may use the question in the future as the basis for fixing the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

MinDat, the first link, identified vitrit as a German synonym for Anthracite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

John G. Jensen

What do we do with an article like John G. Jensen which has no reliable sources, is a first person interview of the subject, has been tagged for cleanup for some days now, and yet is a totally unencyclopedic mess? Corvus cornixtalk 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I came over all bold and pruned it back to the single relevant paragraph. It needs wikifying and should still probably go to AFD. CIreland (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Bolder than I am. Thanks. :) Corvus cornixtalk 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Contacting a site about GFDL compliance

I recently added a website to the list of mirrors and forks. Its entry is here; note that they make no mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. However, I'm not sure how to contact them, as there was no information on their site giving their system administrator's email address or name. The only contact information I could find was an FAQ email address, which I listed under contact information on WP:MIRROR. What should I do next to try to request that they make their site GFDL-compliant? They are also a live mirror of Wikipedia. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be contact info at http://pontefract-yfc.co.uk/PYFC/website-updates.html Corvus cornixtalk 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that. I'll just update the contact info and send them a standard GFDL compliance letter asking that they add mention of Wikipedia and the GFDL. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with Malformed 3-RRR

I submitted a 3-RRR complaint but it was rejected because it was "malformed". Could you tell me what that means and and also how to submit one correctly? This is the malformed 3-RRR. [2]

Please help me understand this. Thanks! Mattisse 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they want the time and date of the differences. The links should be those which show the changes which were done (labeled as "last" in a History list) by the user which is being reported. -- SEWilco (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not know how to get the dates of the diffs. It's too much work for no reward anyway. I'm not going to try anymore. Wikipedia is a game for techies and a bad place for writers. Mattisse 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Submitting 3-RRR requests -can you explain?

I submitted a 3-RRR complaint today: ---User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse (Result: no action, malformed report)---

Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [3] (I am not sure what version this means)


(I tried to understand DIFFTIME but I do not understand what I am supposed to be doing. Please help -- is time started: 17:27, 28 December 2007 - time of Zeraeph's first edit on Psychopathy today?

  • first revert [4]
  • second revert [5]
  • third revert [6]
  • fourth revert [7]
  • fifth revert [8]
  • sixth revert [9]
  • seventh revert [10]
  • eighth refert [11]
  • ninth revert [12]


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block which she served and it was lifted today, a few hours ago.

User:Zeraeph's 28 day block was for this same behavior on the same article Psychopathy, at least in part. Her answer to my article page post was in the same vein as before -- she is right, I am wrong and she does not have to discuss or compromise or come to consensus on changes. She is concentrating on my edits without consulting or trying to compromise or explain to me. She has moved and rearranged reference citations I put there, as well as misrepresented their meanings. Although she has rearranged and removed my citations and and changed or removed my wording, she will not discuss anything related to the content of the articlefwith me, other to state in edit summary that I was wrong, or other disparaging remarks about my edits in the edit summaries. I was warned the last time this happened by User:Viriditas not to contact Zeraeph on her talk page. Mattisse 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined Malformed request. No 3RR violation immediately apparent from history. Please see the other reports on this page as examples on how to provide a correct report. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mattisse 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Resummission of 3-RRr -same first date

I know I would have gotten a 3-RRR if I had interrupted the following list of reverts. How come some get away with it and never others? Mattisse 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Submitting 3-RRR requests -can you explain?

I submitted a 3-RRR complaint today: ---User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse (Result: no action, malformed report)---

Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [25] (I am not sure what version this means)


(I tried to understand DIFFTIME but I do not understand what I am supposed to be doing. Please help -- is time started: 17:27, 28 December 2007 - time of Zeraeph's first edit on Psychopathy today?

  • first revert [26] 17.20 December 28
  • second revert [27]-Revision as of 17:41, 28 December 2007
  • third revert [28]- Revision as of 17:43, 28 December 2007
  • fourth revert [29] -Revision as of 17:46, 28 December 2007
  • fifth revert [30] - Revision as of 17:47, 28 December 2007
  • sixth revert [31] -Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2007
  • seventh revert [32] - Revision as of 17:56, 28 December 2007
  • eighth refert [33] - Revision as of 17:58, 28 December 2007
  • ninth revert [34] - Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2007
  • 10th revert [35] - Revision as of 18:00, 28 December 2007
  • 11th revert [36] - Revision as of 18:07, 28 December 2007
  • 12th revert [37] - Revision as of 18:12, 28 December 2007
  • 13th revert [38] - Revision as of 18:14, 28 December 2007
  • 14 revert [39] - Revision as of 18:16, 28 December 2007
  • 15 revert [40] -Revision as of 18:17, 28 December 2007
  • 16th revert [41] - Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2007
  • 17th revert [42] - Revision as of 19:17, 28 December 2007
  • 16th revert [43] - Revision as of 19:20, 28 December 2007
  • 17th revert [44] - Revision as of 19:22, 28 December 2007
  • 18th revert [45] - Revision as of 19:26, 28 December 2007
  • 19th revert [46] - Current revision (19:43, 28 December 2007)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block which she served and it was lifted today, a few hours ago.

User:Zeraeph's 28 day block was for this same behavior on the same article Psychopathy, at least in part. Her answer to my article page post was in the same vein as before -- she is right, I am wrong and she does not have to discuss or compromise or come to consensus on changes. She is concentrating on my edits without consulting or trying to compromise or explain to me. She has moved and rearranged reference citations I put there, as well as misrepresented their meanings. Although she has rearranged and removed my citations and and changed or removed my wording, she will not discuss anything related to the content of the articlefwith me, other to state in edit summary that I was wrong, or other disparaging remarks about my edits in the edit summaries. I was warned the last time this happened by User:Viriditas not to contact Zeraeph on her talk page. Mattisse 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined Malformed request. No 3RR violation immediately apparent from history. Please see the other reports on this page as examples on how to provide a correct report. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mattisse 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dedlining my request! Pretty hopeless, hun? Regards, Mattisse 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Diff of 3RR Warning: DIFFS DIFFTIME" is for situations when a 3RR warning has been given to a new user (experienced users should be aware of 3RR) and should consist of an http link to an edit diff followed by the time of the warning edit. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, the reverting user says he has left. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious grey box

If you guys could take a look at thisimage deleted at my request. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC), and tell me what you think may cause it. Recently when I come to the Village Pump/Proposals, specifically the section titled Destroy bots - at least those that deal with copyright issues, I get a weird grey box covering a lot of the text. It doesn't let me scroll for about 5-10 seconds and then the box disappears and everything is fine. It happens every time I go to this specific section (using a link to the section). Any ideas? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that (Firefox 2.0, Windows XP). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess it might just be me...My question is does anybody have any idea what could cause this? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a wild stab in the dark, but are you using popups? CIreland (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Anything unusual in your monobook.css? CIreland (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just looked. Running out of ideas. CIreland (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Aw well, thanks for trying :) - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're using Firefox, you could try to pull up the Page Info (Tools->Page Info) and go through the various elements, especially on the Media tab, to see if you can find anything strange. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've looked through that about 2,000 times. But as of right now the box doesn't appear. Maybe it was just a bug on WP, which is resolved. Thanks again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

List of fossil birds needing cleanup(?)

Comments:

  1. This article is 91kb long.
  2. I've briefly read through a very small bit of the article and I think the writing style needs to be fixed by a bit, somehow.
  3. The "<!-- --!>" format thingy is probably used too much and I didn't understand most of them.
  4. There are plenty of question marks (?) somehow, I guess the main contributor is trying to tell us that he himself isn't so sure about that or those with question marks need attention from experts or something.
  5. I can't understand codes like AMNH 25272, PVPH 237 and UCMP 117598 written in the article, but I'm guessing those are the name of the fossil specimens. Does this mean that the article has too many jargons and needing a simpler style of writing for better understanding?
  6. Some scientific names are not italicised and most are. I don't know if they are the way they should be or the editor simply forgot to italicise them.

Anyone can kindly step up to check it out? Thanks a lot. — Yurei-eggtart 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

lyme disease - assistance needed

I do not feel qualified to edit this article but this reference badly needs to be put in regarding deer ticks. This is not well known info but very important.


_Quote from Cornell University @ www.entomology.cornell.edu/Extension/DiagnosticLab/IDLFS/DeerTicks/DeerTicks.html#N10040 <http://www.entomology.cornell.edu/Extension/DiagnosticLab/IDLFS/DeerTicks/DeerTicks.html#N10040>_

“Adult females feed on a host for seven to ten days, swelling to the size of a small pea, and becoming blue-black.”


Mike Peter

Ready to archive. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One month semi-protection of all European football clubs

I don't know if this is even possible, but as the January transfer window has just opened across European football (soccer), we are already seeing many players being added and removed from the squad lists. While a lot of this is in good faith - ie anon editors not knowing WP:RS, etc - it is taking a lot of time to revert, etc, and there is so much speculation about that it's going to happen all month. Also, if it would be possible to semi-protect every European club, could every player also be semi-protected? I doubt either are possible, but thought I would just check here Whitstable (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection says: Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred. And no, vandalism to a couple of pages doesn't justify a blanket protection.
Furthermore, I would be against it, lots of IPs are constructive contributors. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

2000 death of a man at tabbimobile in a volvo

Where exactly is this info from? I use to go to wik for info but now realise its an ignorant space. Cant see Richard Saunders anywhere in your pathetic attempt at the death roll. Be responsible for claiming such an important space or just fuck off and get out of our space sicko computer nerds that have nothuing else to do but pretend you know everything when you dont —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.250.112 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain what article you're talking about? Right now, your comments are pretty unintelligible. Corvus cornixtalk 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If there's an article that lacks important information, go ahead and add the information. Tempshill (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I think "death of a man at tabbimobile in a volvo" is a Captain Beefheart song title? RomaC (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image license

This image is for a game that is licensed under the GPL, but the picture is of the Enterprise, which I assume to be copyrighted in some way. Which license should I use? SharkD (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The image you link to mentions "This is a screenshot of a non-free copyrighted video or computer game". Are you sure it is GPL licenced? effeietsanders 13:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblical references abound in Christianity-oriented articles

I'm unsure whether this is the correct place to bring this up, but I've discovered that a substantial number of Christianity-oriented articles are using Biblical verses in articlespace to "prove the point" rather than using reliable secondary sources as per Wikipedia convention/policy. I first came across this at Lutheranism#Central_doctrines and after discussing the issue on the talk-page and filing an RfC, I discovered the same sort of editing on other pages (examples: Jesus, Harrowing of Hell, Ascension of Jesus Christ, etc). It seems like this is a Wiki-wide issue that needs to be addressed by a substantial number of editors to correct this.

As far as I am aware, Biblical citations are not to be used in this way since Wikipedia is not a soapbox or pulpit, and it is admitted by some other editors that this style of writing sounds more like a church pamphlet than an encyclopaedic article. As I said, I don't know if this is the correct place to draw attention to this issue. If not, please let me know if there is a more appropriate place? Thanks, Ekantik talk 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with you but I don't know what to do about it that isn't going to take a lot of effort. You might want to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lutheranism, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and post a comment. Your description of the use of biblical verse to "prove the point" in liu of actual citations of secondary sources is, unfortunately, tied up in some Christians reliance on prooftexting in making an argument. They might not get your point at all. Still, the fight would be worthwhile. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on nbsp usage.

I am trying to find out if I should have a non break space in an address such as 23 Railway Cuttings. Should I do {{nowrap|23 Railway}} Cuttings for example? The MOS does not have an example of this type. Also, I cannot work out where the best place to ask this question. MortimerCat (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sam, again

Another edit war is developing in the Sam article. At the suggestion of someone not in the current dispute, I implemented a compromise that satisfies (what I thought was) the problems that caused the previous edit war: That there are no references and that Sam can be used as a female name but is primarily a male name. This was done using a link that someone else provided, a link to the U.S. Census Bureau statistics page about first names. CorleoneSerpicoMontana has goofed up the formatting and is pushing the POV/original research/synthesis that "Although it is almost universally male, it has can also be a Female given name ...." I reverted this three times.

After checking, the third time was within twenty-four hours so I undid it. But in about an hour, it will have been twenty-four hours since the first so I'll be able to revert it again. However, I think that my change will be reverted by CorleoneSerpicoMontana again. This will probably be a WP:3RR violation by him, but that isn't what I'm really concerned about. My concern is the obvious (to me) POV/original research/synthesis when the statistics that are given on Sam can speak for themselves. I request administrative assistance, or this will continue. — Val42 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that the stats while useful do not belong up front as it were, they could have a place further down the article.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to revert three times per day. It might be a good idea to step back from the article for a bit while other editors look it over. (I'm not singling you out. I would give the same advice to CorleoneSerpicoMontana.) Generally speaking, dab pages don't indicate whether some use of a word is common, just whether there exists a use of a word which is notable enough to have its own article. I haven't looked at other name articles for comparison. Michael Slone (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, but the statistics were added to avoid what happened in a previous edit war. I also have other comments too, but as long as they are about the substance of the Sam article, I think that they should continue on that article's talk page. — Val42 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Always trying to move the article forwards. I would venture to move the stats down the page.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User impersonation

I've been dealing with some high school vandals from Germany for several years. They've been very active in the past month and recently they've started creating accounts to impersonate me. For example:

They go to the point of copying my talk and user page to make their account look like mine. How do I go about having all these blocked?

(The whole vandalism thing with them is documented on the origininal account, Eduardo89:. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:U says that admins can block Disruptive usernames that have clearly been created only to cause trouble. I suggest requesting blocks at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good place to know about. Thanks. The accounts are now blocked. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda lost

I just want to request an article on Chinese "Milk Names" but I can't navigate my way to the place to request an article. I know it exists, but where? -Chwoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.130.254 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for creation. Or you can create the article yourself, see Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to request that someone else write the article, then the place is Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you are an unregistered user, you should create an account, so that you can create articles, given that the account is at least four days old. Johnny Au (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Latex Help

Hi, I'm writing the Inelastic collision article and I need a little help on writing:
Vf=m1·v1,i+m2·v2,i [the following are under the fraction sign of the previous] m1+m2
in Latex. Thanks!-- penubag  00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean you want ? Algebraist 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
(or possibly ) Algebraist 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The top one's good! Thanks!! -- penubag  02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation template

Is there a citation template suitable for citing a cdrom version of the Encyclopædia Britannica? DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If {{cite encyclopedia}} isn't quite right, you could try the generic {{citation}}. WODUP 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Lacking a specific citation template at Category:Citation templates, there's a guideline for doing it manually in this edu pdf, which offers the following examples:
  • Bodyworks: Discover the World Beneath Your Skin 1995, CD-ROM, Softkey International, Wimbledon Common, London.
  • Rosen, M. 1998, CD-ROM, 'Marx, Karl', in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Craig, Routledge, New York.
  • Interactive Physiology 1999, CD-ROM, vol. 2, Muscular System, Instructor's edn, ADAM Software, Atlanta, Georgia
Note that I have not incorporated formating. Johnny Au (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How to handle - users essay style writing & vague cites

Boykovladimir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, I don't know how to handle this, RFC & AN/I seem too severe. This user writes in an essay style and has added a link to an essay writing service - [47] which may explain it. I belatedly put up the welcome message so that they had the opportunity to view the WP guidelines and a couple of people have reversed edits and explained why on his talk page. He has created some articles Mature Products, Cyclical Products & Taiwan Language policy with vague cites (eg Johansson, 2001) which I have been unable to fully verify (some authors known, some not, paper titles ommitted) for existence, reliability and pov. His citation style continues throughout his edits. There may well be some good info. here so I'm reluctant to remove it. All 20 edits occured on 4 January, with nothing before or since. What do you make of it ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack... these are horrible. I am not even sure I understand what they are about or if the topics are notable. My instinct is to delete... but I do understand the desire to not jump hard on a newbie.
My advice: if you can salvage the articles with a rewrite, go ahead and do so. If not, discuss the problem on each of the relevant talk pages... point to some articles that are well written, so the editor can see the proper way to write an article. Give examples of how to write a valid citation. etc.
If someone responds by trying to improve the articles, then all is good. Set the creating editor up with a mentor if you do not have the time to do so yourself. (I think there is a volunteer group that does this)
If, on the other hand, there is no response or improvement to the articles after a reasonable amount of time... I'll say three weeks (an arbitrary choice of time span on my part)... then put the articles up for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just userfy them and tell the editor that the alternative is deletion, plus you'll be available to move them back into mainspace after he fixes all the citations and removes unsourced material? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboar & John. There are some more comments about non verifiable references on his edits to William Blake - Talk:William_Blake#.27London.27. As I said there, I am now of the opinion the the references are false until he proves otherwise. Unless anyone here disagrees I propose to delete all of his amendments and userfy the articles he created. I have placed a message to this effect on User_talk:Boykovladimir. What do you think ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue with userbox

I want to create some userboxes, but before creating I want to discuss if all the userboxes will be suitable with wikipedia guidelines or not. (I am here giving the texts which will be displayed on the userbox).

  1. "This user strongly oppose civilization." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
  2. "This user strongly oppose capitalism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
  3. "This user strongly oppose communism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
  4. "This user strongly oppose both capitalism and communism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
  5. "This user supports Animal Liberation Front." (this userbox may not be suitable becuse ALF is often considered as a terrorist organization)
  6. "This user supports Nuclear weapon." (there is nothing controversial in this statement because most nations, including United States support nuclear weopon)
  7. "This user supports Biological weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable because Biolohical weopons are prohibited by United Nations)
  8. "This user supports Chemical weapon."(this userbox may not be suitable because Chemical weopons are prohibited by United Nations)
  9. "This user supports legaligation of Biological weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable)
  10. "This user supports legaligation of Chemical weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable)
  11. "This user supports Nuclear war." (there is nothing controversial in this userbox)
  12. "This user supports Weapons of Mass Destruction." (this userbox may not be suitable)
  13. "This user think Osama bin Laden should be given death penalty." (this userbox will be suitable because it reflects majority opinion)

Please advice me out of the above-mentioned sentences, which will be suitable to be used in userbox according to wikipedia guidelines and which not.

  • I cannot find that there is any offensive statement in the first 4 proposals. I agree that the fifth proposal may be controversial as it is associated with Animal Liberation Front, as ALF is often described as a terrorist organization. I think the proposals with Biological weapon and Chemical weapon also may be controversial as no nation is supporting these weopons and these weopons are prohibitated by United Nations. But I cannot find there will be anything wrong with the nuclear weopon proposal, because most nations support Nuclear weapon. And supporting Nuclear War is also not controversial. And the last suggetion may reflect majority opinion that Laden should be given death penalty. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This debate is moved into Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Issue with userbox. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)/Archive_4&oldid=1140386792"