User talk:OlEnglish/Archive 15

WikiProjects
Hi OlEnglish! I was looking through WP:WPPRO and saw that many proposals have not been archived yet. Can I archive them? Also, what if there is consensus to create a certain WikiProject but it hasn't been created? Should we create them? Or, notify the user who proposed the WikiProject? Novice7 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, by all means, please do archive them! That would be a great help. If there is consensus to create a project and it hasn't been created yet you're certainly free to create it yourself, but you should be willing to maintain it! Yes it's probably better to notify the proposers first. -- &oelig; &trade; 01:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Novice7 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

BMW 1 Series (F20) page
I wanted to make a new page about brand new bmw 1 series automobile but i saw you deleted page a while back because there was no any references. However car is now officially on market so I did the BMW 1 Series (F20) page. Check it out and let me know if I did something wrong cause I never made a page which was deleted before.

Cheers

Z interactive (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Z_interactive


 * It's a good start.. I'm no expert at writing articles about cars, but I can tell you that on first impressions it does not strike me as being written in an encyclopedic style and tone, or rather a typical encyclopedic article, even so, I couldn't tell you specifically how it can be improved, except for maybe taking out lines like "It’s a really clever and easy to use system, which has you driving more economically without even realising it." and other seemingly WP:OR opinions and endorsements. Try reading through WP:Writing better articles, or WP:The perfect article, and other writing guides, there's many available. Try finding a GA or FA article on the same subject and compare it to yours, see how you can improve. -- &oelig; &trade; 17:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd love your help
Being about ready to take User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines live, I'd like you to look it over and advise.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks good! I think it's a great addition to the WP:Your first article, WP:Starting an article, etc. series of Writing guides. Superb job! I also like the "..for dummies" tagline.. that's usually what newbies look for as that brand is known to be easy and encouraging. -- &oelig; &trade; 17:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: page since moved to A Primer for newcomers

David Ramadan Page
OlEnglish, thank you for stepping in. The David Ramadan page was created several months ago by me because he is a prominent businessman and very active in Virginia politics, as well as being on the George Mason Board. Subsequently he is seeking political office.

It would appear that his opponent in the race is using the wiki page to continue to spread misinformation. I have taken what is particularly inflammatory down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddonofrio (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I only stepped in to prevent the back-and-forth edit warring, I take no sides in this dispute and strongly suggest for you to discuss the issue maturely with the other user involved without making any judgments or accusations. If the edit warring continues a block may be warranted. -- &oelig; &trade; 17:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination
Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey, thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it :) Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 10:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Organizing Wikipedia Loves Libraries
Noticed your comment here Where where you thinking of trying to get one up and running? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the west coast would be nice considering that's where I live ;) but I'd be happy with anywhere in Canada. I'm not really good at organizing these kinds of things.. I just think this is a great idea and hoping it can spread to more places. I'm very much in support of and would try to promote any way that the aims of Wikipedia can be achieved and am just glad if it happens. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. I have asked UBC if they are interested. Would you be available to help?v-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What can I do? -- &oelig; &trade; 04:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for UBC to get back to me. Will let you know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I have received your message.
I have received your warning message that I did disruptive editing. But it's not disruptive editing! I just fixed WRONG LINK by deleting it. Please check out and answer me.

p.s. I'm wiki beginner. I don't know how I response your first talk message directly. So I write a new message in your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msu2006 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got the wrong guy. I didn't send you that message, User:Trut-h-urts man did. Not sure how you ended up at my talk page. Also, I'm not sure what you think is wrong about the wikilink you were removing, but the link is fine, so can please stop removing it? Thanks. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Self Promotion to GA
I ran across the article Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base reviewing for the Military History project and saw it was self promoted to Good Article status by the primary editor User:Bwmoll3. I wasn't able to find any vote on how this is a good article and reading through it I found it had issues like a small intro and missing references. I don't know if I should approach the editor or what the wikipolicy is on fake good articles.--MOLEY (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Molestash. Sorry I totally forgot to get back to you! Doh! Yes the proper thing to do would be to undo the invalid self-assessment and leave a note on their talk page, which I see you have already done, good work. Another option would have been to put it up for reassessment. I think I see what happened here though.. it may have been an honest mistake by the editor. It looks like he changed the redirect 'Ellington Field' to point to his article, but its original target was Ellington International Airport (Texas) and that IS a valid GA, so I think he might have inadvertently copied and pasted the good article template, but I could be wrong. Sorry again for the late reply! -- &oelig; &trade; 03:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hi. I noticed you deleted my article because of No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). Can you explain this a little better, because I feel it had great significance.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeme123 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. The article was tagged for deletion because it did not explain the significance or importance of the organization, and there was no references. You can see WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for the primary criteria on what's required for notability. If you were not finished the article and was still planning on adding references and content that asserts notability, I can restore the article for you as a draft in your userspace where you can work on it until it's complete. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes please do so. Since I am a wikipedia newbie I was wondering, do you guys offer an article review by one of the admins before posting publicly to ensure it meets the guidelines? Skeme123 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I've restored it to User:Skeme123/Deucerr where you can practice your writing. Please also read the message I left on your talk page. As far as reviewing new pages goes, every Wikipedia volunteer reviews new articles, not just admins, and after they've already been posted publicly. The way it works is: someone writes an article, it's instantly public and visible to everyone, a Wikipedia volunteer (doesn't have to be an admin) sees it on a list of new pages, he decides if it meets policies/guidelines, if it doesn't, he marks it for deletion where an admin will later review the marked article and make the final decision to delete. -- &oelig; &trade; 16:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AWARDS
There seems to be a consensus from the Pointless Barnstar discussion that it should remain a personal award. Am I allowed to add it to the personal awards page? Pinetalk 08:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you mean WP:PUA I don't see why not.. I don't have a problem with it. But I wasn't involved in the original discussion, so asking me for permission won't really change anything if others are still opposed to it. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

CareWell VIP
A consent of use agreement was sent to permissions (en) at wikimedia.org:

Aug. 30, 2011

I hereby affirm that I, Ben Holzhauer represent the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the content on http://www.carewellvip.com/.

I agree to Attribution (CC-BY): publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0".

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Ben

Ben Holzhauer COO CareWell

Bryanfalla (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OTRS acknowledgement; Requests_for_undeletion. – Adrignola talk 20:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphans question
Hi, do you know how to check to see how many wikipedia articles link to an orphan? Blackash  have a chat 02:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On the left hand side of the screen, under 'Toolbox' click on 'What links here'. That will show you what other pages link to the article. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS question at COIN
Hey OE. Looks like that situation at John Prendergast has reared its head again. A user has requested some input from an OTRS volunteer at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thought you'd be a good choice as you are somewhat familiar with the editor in question. Thanks, The Interior  (Talk) 21:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. We're not looking to out anyone, obviously, but the editor in question seems to be walking a fine line between an advocate and a COI.  They sometimes say "we" and "our" when referring to file uploads and edits but also claim to have no affiliation.  Everyone seems too hesitant to pull a WP:DUCK trigger and I'm thinking the OTRS tickets may shed some light on the subject.  Right now, people are leaning towards a topic ban and knowing if there's a certain COI would be helpful.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 22:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi sorry for the late reply. The text of the ticket does not provide any direct evidence of a connection between User:Jespah and The Enough Project. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. This is based on the ticket linked from the notice at Talk:John_Prendergast. I did not check any other tickets, if they exist. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Morgantown
The song "Morgantown WV" is not played "by radio stations all across the state of West Virginia on Mountaineer Football game days". It just isn't. Some fan of the song, maybe somebody who used to be in a band that played it, can make that sort of hyperbolic claim all he wants, but it just isn't true. I'm sorry if you feel it's a violation of WP:BITE not to give somebody a free pass to make any outrageous, inaccurate claim they want to. This is an encyclopedia, and someone's personal impression is just not acceptable. Neither is claiming authorship of a song or a book or anything else without evidence. WP:VERIFY applies to everyone. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "you can't just put in your unverified impressions" I think you've got the meaning of verifiability a little confused. Just because something is unsourced does not make it unVERIFIable. This situation is just an example and I'm not defending the content of the edit but you don't just go around removing content citing WP:V when that content IS or at least COULD BE verifiable. As WP:V says, only "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed". If you challenge his edit and want to remove it fine, do it and explain on the talk page why you challenge it, but you don't tell them in your edit summary to go read WP:VERIFY, that's got nothing to do with anything, and especially when it's the users very first edit done in good faith, and not even a simple welcome message or explanation on their user talk page, that's not being helpful, that's bitey. Besides, he did give a source within the text: "...according to a September 1984 newspaper article in the university Daily Athenaeum". -- &oelig; &trade; 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I will endeavor, as you reasonably suggest, to give an expanded explanation on either the article or the editor's talk page, rather than trying to squeeze something into an editor summary. That's fair.


 * An attribution like "According to a September 1984 newspaper article in the university Daily Athenaeum" &mdash; for which I used to write and edit; I'm very familiar with that school paper &mdash; based on somebody remembering when they think they might have read something ... surely you can see how this wouldn't pass muster in a college paper, not without title, byline, date (it's a weekday paper, not a monthly) and optimally the relevant passage. If a college professor wouldn't accept something as vague as "September 1984 newspaper article," how could an encyclopedia?


 * I do appreciate your trying to mediate in good will, even though reverting me without discussion is exactly what you believed I did to someone else. No matter; I understand your good intentions. I can only ask that you understand that such an egregious passage of uncited POV and NOR, including an authorship attribution, is dangerous to keep in something that calls itself an encyclopedia. I just don't think it's too much to ask of literate, adult people to cite something and to not just put their opinions and impressions into Wikipedia.


 * You've made a constructive suggestion to me, which I have absorbed and will try to use. I appreciate being able to have this discussion with you. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As promised, I have left 70x7 a detailed, friendly explanation behind my edit, at User talk:70x7. I thank you again for your well-meaning effort. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I'm sorry for kind've jumping down your throat here. And thank you for the very detailed explanation you gave to the editor in question (more detail than I expected!) :) -- &oelig; &trade; 15:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot
I started an RFC at WP:VPI and encourage you to comment there. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Pages with nutshell help
Category:Pages with nutshell help, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard case involving Jespah
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban of Jespah". Thank you.  Ol Yeller Talktome 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me for not wanting to get involved any further in this matter. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

correcting Robert Hooks' page WITH HIM
i appreciate your efforts. And I adore and rely on Wikipedia. But you have written me what appears or feels to be a "warning" and so I want you to see what I have cc'd to Robert and sent to wikipedia...hoping that my language isn't too strong.

"Since I am collaborating with Mr Hooks on his autobiography, and he has long been DISTRESSED about the amount of MISinformation all over the internet INCLUDING TO A LARGE EXTEND WIKIPEDIA, I have started to chip away at it. NOTHING I correct or add is done without his input.  And I would imagine that the actual subject's info is superior to the patchwork that can happen by well-meaning strangers. He and I regard Ossie Davis' page on wikipedia as being pretty close to ideal.  And, given that Mr Hooks is functioning at (his) capacity on the computer...the most accurate info will be coming from me.  And, given our work on the book, i have 3 parallel TIMELINES to help me sort it out.  Thank you for your efforts.  It makes us feel secure.  But...just a heads up...Mr Hooks' input IS the most accurate timeline.(If only I had the time right now to more methodically address the wikipedia page!)

Because we consider WIKI THE place people go for into, that is the site I am focusing on. And since his memoir deals with MUCH that isn't flattering, I can promise you that my sole purpose in tweaking his page...as I will need to continue to do...is toward finally putting his timeline and actual participation in certain events right.

thank you for your efforts, sincerity and attention to detail Lorrie Marlow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.108.233 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay no biggie :) Just please be mindful of WP:COI and especially WP:NPOV, a very important policy. Good luck with the article and happy editing. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 16:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Thank you
Thank you for your welcome! Wish you happy and lucky! -Leekelin (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Link to ANI
I mentioned you in the ANI thread you suggested regarding the WFVA vandalism and others, as you were the one to semi-protect the WFVA page. You can find the thread here, though you don't have to respond if you don't wish to. Thanks for your help. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 09:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Need your advice on outlines
Where, in your opinion, would be the best place to start cleaning them up?

I've been working on lead sections (I'm done working on the leads from the outlines in the culture section), but I'm not sure that the leads are the biggest problem.

Also, I'd like to increase traffic to outlines. Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciated.

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 01:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wish I knew :) I don't see them as a problem really, and don't actively edit them myself, so don't have much advice to give you, except just keep doing what you're doing. There's many ways of increasing traffic to pages. More prominent links in more locations would be the most obvious example. But perhaps while this RfC is going on it may not be the most opportune time for such promotion, as it may backfire. But on the other hand, it may do the opposite. It's up to you, I know you are very capable of doing what needs to be done with Outlines and are the best man for the job. Just don't get burned out! That's the best advice I can give you.. take some time off, or work on other projects for a bit, spread your activities out more so you don't get tunnel-vision on a single thing. Just think of all the effort you exert on defending outlines how much you could really do to improve Wikipedia. :) -- &oelig; &trade; 06:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As an experiment, I placed links leading to Outline of chess, and the traffic quadrupled. Though I don't know if those gains will remain.  Time will tell.


 * See http://stats.grok.se/en/201110/Outline%20of%20chess


 * Another problem I need solved is about gathering traffic stats. If there was a way to automatically gather all the stats for all the outlines, that would sure save me a lot of trouble.  Even better would be doing so for outlines, portals, and categories, displayed in a table for comparison.


 * Any ideas? The Transhumanist 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Portal talk pages
You know something about portals. What is a portal talk page for? The posts at Portal talk:Natib Qadish seem inappropriate, have I misunderstood something or has the editor misunderstood? The article Natib Qadish seems basically OR, so I'm thinking it's the editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no comment on the article but all talk pages, including portal talk pages, are meant for discussing ways of improvement of its associated page. Copying content to it or using it as a sandbox or some sort of personal 'storage space' for future portal content is indeed inappropriate. You wouldn't be in the wrong by reformatting the page but it would be a good idea to leave the editor a message on his talk page. -- &oelig; &trade; 13:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've deleted the material, added the appropriate templates including the Neo-paganism Wikiproject template, and notified the editor. There's a similar problem with the portal itself that I mentioned to him and to an editor involved in the project. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver
As part of "Wikipedia Loves Libraries program of events at libraries and archives across North America around October 2011," please check out the new Meetup/Vancouver page for people interested in a meetup this October 2011 at the central branch of the Vancouver Public Library. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks. -- A. Kupicki (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Date change for Vancouver meetup
Hello,

Since you signed the Vancouver meetup page, in case you didn't see it, it was moved to October 23, next Sunday.

Thank you. Inverse Hypercube 07:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with citing a newspaper URL
Hi,

There I was deciding to do my first edit that required a citation and I had it all ready to go. So I read the Help pages and worked through a bit of trial and error.

The ref link goes to the newspaper but fails to pull up the page I want. I have checked that the URL is correct but cannot see what else I have missed. To make things better - I decided to add the report and cite to the page of, yep, Jimmy Wales! Clever Huh?

Here is the additiona and the cite:

in 'Personal life' I added: According to an interview with UK newspaper The Independent on Sunday (Oct 2011)[86] Wales has a child with British fiancée, Kate Garvey, and is going to settle in London.

The citation appears OK in 'References' but the page link does not work. The correct URL is: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/jimmy-wales-the-internets-shy-evangelist-2374679.html

I suspect it's only a single character astray but it means the link does not work. If, under these circumstances, it is best to remove the addition, please do so or tell me to. So, I just made sure to pick a really obvious place to fail! Thanks Heysford (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Try this:

7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours
Hey ! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We've also started a discussion here on access issues for some of the features - I'd love to hear your thoughts :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh - and the next Office Hours session will be held on Thursday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Give me a poke if you can't make it but want me to send you the logs when they're released - we'll be holding sessions timed for East Coast editors and Australasian/Asian editors next week. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I really appreciate you informing me of all this. My time is so limited these days and other engagements have me running around so much that unfortunately I seem to miss these occasions, but I'm very happy to see the WMF is actively involving the community in discussions like this. If I don't make it then yes I would be interested in reading the logs. Thanks again. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome; I'll send them along. Take some time off, or something! We don't want you melting all over the wiki :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)