User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 15

Signatures
How come my user talkpage is not hyperlinked in my signature? —Wiki Raja த 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I just found it out. Regards. —Wiki Raja த 03:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T/C) 13:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS
Please see Requests_for_undeletion. – Adrignola talk 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've handled this.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about Haroon Rashid
I hope you don't mind bugging you. Is it ok if I bug you about what to do with a possible deletion?

I've come across the article for Haroon Rashid. Article has been used to describe three different people during its lifetime. Who knows to what person this article belongs to. I'm not sure what to do. Security manager: First incarnation belongs to a non-notable security manager at Millennium Point. An office/recreation building in England. This is the last revision of the article about this person. Redirect: A sockpuppet came along and redirected it to Harun al-Rashid. It stayed this way for three years. Engineer: Recently a new editor blanked the page and put up an article about an Engineer with no references. I'm unable to find anything about the guy, but he has a common name. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I walked through the entire history. I have some thoughts, but let me sit on them for a bit, maybe overnight.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any idea yet? Bgwhite (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Couple meetings upcoming, then will respond. Sorry, it got away from me.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In my view:
 * Haroon Rashid the security manager is not notable. The article about that person never had a proper reference (on occasion, some external links to his employer.) At its best, if that article were recreated today, it would be eligible for PRODBLP.
 * Haroon Rashid the engineer has the potential of being notable, because of the claim of being CEO or a corporation. However, assuming this is the company, it isn't likely to be notable, so I doubt this person would reach the notability hurdle.
 * Harun al-Rashid is clearly notable, and I'll accept that Haroon Rashid may be a plausible redirect.

I'm not comfortable deleting the engineer as a CSD. I doubt that it would survive an AfD, but that isn't an acceptable CSD criteria.

My first thought: Move Haroon Rashid to Haroon Rashid (engineer), then either leave it as is (with maintenance templates) or nominate it for AfD. Create Haroon Rashid as a redirect to Harun al-Rashid. Should the article about the engineer survive, then we need to decide whether to add a hatnote to Harun al-Rashid (which I don't like) or create a dab page for the two articles. Normally, we don't use a dab when there are two, but I think it would be better in this case. However, this leaves the situation in limbo until such time as we decide the engineer article will stick, so it isn't a great plan.

My second thought: proceed as above, but nominate the engineer for AfD. We'll know in seven days whether we need a dab page, or no.

In any case, I think the security manager can be ignored. What do you think?-- SPhilbrick  T  14:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, the security manager can be ignored. I only found two other websites that mention the engineer's company.  A forum post saying come for education in Malaysia and get a free trip to Singapore.  The other is the the blog for the company and only has one post.


 * Would a BLPPROD be a better route? If not, I'd say nominate for an AfD as I don't think he is notable.  Would it be better to separate to Haroon Rashid (engineer) and have that deleted or just have the current deleted and brought back as a redirect? Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BLPProd sounds like a good idea. I was thinking there was someone recent to object, but I think I mis remembered.--  SPhilbrick  T  12:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl noted that the best option is a split, which I've never done. She carried that out, and left the deletion to us. I BLPProdded one, PRODed another and haven't decided what to do with the other two.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Never knew you could do a split like this.  Need to remember it for next time.  Looks like the only article not prodded is the engineer.  Bgwhite (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Environmental Technologies Action Plan
Hi, you just deleted the lead, but I cited two URLs in the tag: the following section is a copyvio, too. After finding that the lead and the following sections were copyvio, I tagged it for deletion and didn't bother to find more URLs. I strongly suspect the rest is copied from some place, too (it definitely reads that way), if you insist I can search for it. --Crusio (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed that there were multiple urls. I usually check for that. I'll go back and look. -- SPhilbrick  T  21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now deleted. Thanks for pointing out my error.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, only those that don't work never make mistakes! Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dew Tour
Good morning. Last night Athaenara deleted messages left on the talk page of Talk:Dew Tour 2007, Talk:Dew Tour 2008, and Talk:Dew Tour 2009. They were deleted before I could see any sort of message or who the message was from. Do you mind taking a look to see if there's anything that we need to do (address promotional usernames, legal threats, help educate, etc.)? Ol Yeller '''Talktome 13:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing, but thanks for watching. Someone tried to add a template . Not sure how one adds a template to a deleted article, or perhaps when deleting, I missed the talk page. Not sure, but no big deal.--  SPhilbrick  T  13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Shirock
Don't you just hate when you click the delete button only to be told the article does not exist and "may have been deleted by someone else"? :~p Lady  of  Shalott  01:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. I don't mind when it is some simple A7. But if it is a G12, and not a straightforward one, an article where pieces are pulled together and a little rewriting is done, but it's too close to the original, and you spend ten minutes or more making sure it is unequivocal, then hit delete, and it's already gone!-- SPhilbrick  T  01:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! (Just for the record, I was going to add G11 to the reasons as well.) Oh well. :) Lady  of  Shalott  01:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A request
Hi Sphilbrick. Based on your recent posts on AN/I, I have come to consider you as somewhat of a "defender of the underdog." Given that, I'm wondering if you would be willing to take a look at an unfortunate situation with an IP editor who's been making useful article edits but also some angry talk page ones. I don't feel I'm involved in the WP:INVOLVED sense, but given that (1) the IP has hurled abuse in my direction, and (2) I happen to strongly agree with the actual edit the IP has been unsuccessfully trying to make, I wanted an outside opinion from a respected admin who'd be willing to look at the situation with fresh eyes. The IP's contributions and talk page history and the Van Tuong Nguyen article history basically tell the story: the IP made a helpful edit, was reverted and templated for it, lashed out, and has been poked for it in a variety of venues ever since. If you have time to look at this and offer your thoughts, I would greatly appreciate it, but if you don't have the time or inclination, that's fine too. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will take a look.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some additional background can be found here, which is when I was first made aware of this. 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. I've now read the WQA and most of the other edits, but hadn't seen that. -- SPhilbrick  T  20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: WNBA Top 15
Thanks! --Jtalledo (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Got the article
Thanks for the article and the welcome. I got what I needed, so I marked it db-u1. Cogitating (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, I've now deleted it.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . Cogitating (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCommons
Don't forget to check the final message I sent you on flickr licenses at your WikiCommons account. I have to go now as I'm quite busy. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

K_G_Suresh
Hi Sphilbrick. I'm afraid that our friend has returned to this article and is removing the maintenance tags again. I've tried to engage him in conversation on his talk page again but as far as I can tell it's either being ignored or not been seen. I applied for page protection a few weeks ago and it was turned down.

You'll see from the history that it's a constant war of reverting each other and a few users have also chipped in doing the same. I believe the user has also made some additions to the article so yesterday I reviewed the maintenance templates and re-added those I felt still applied.

I'm unsure how to proceed from here, can you help?

Thanks, CaptRik (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked for a week, and added a description of the reason. I don't know whether the IP knows to check the IP talk page, but I don't know what else to do. On a related subject, I cleaned up some of the peacock phrases earlier, but I didn't remove that part of the template. I plan to do so, as I reread, and don't see the peacock problem now. It may simply be relative, but let me know if you disagree.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More removal tonight, different IP address. I've reverted but just a heads up.  CaptRik (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I attempted to contact K_G_Suresh by email, but have received no response.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

88.5.27.93
Hello, sorry to bother you. I saw and liked some of your comments over the business at User talk:2.220.204.70. The same user has shown up again at 88.5.27.93 and is now blocked there again/as well/whatever. I have no great stomach for a fight here; I do know that admins have a difficult job to do; I don't want to criticize other editors or admins; I don't want to be unhelpful when I know that the motivation of most of the people involved will have been good even though I may disagree with some of what was actually done. So, I am not up for a crusade on this. I'd rather not be involved in nasty personal stuff, ever. Having said all that I cannot rid myself of a feeling of wrongness about what has gone on. I feel and indeed am powerless to do anything but it's like watching a slow-motion trainwreck. I'd have preferred to see this editor come back as a useful member of the project (their non-contentious edits seemed OK to me) but instead I fear that we are losing them, and indeed making an enemy in the process. I don't know if there is anything you can do to help and I don't want to encourage you into a conflict. I just wanted to mention it, and to express my disquiet. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. While you were sending it, I was composing a post to another editor involved in the incident, and I referred to it as a train wreck, so our impressions match.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that. I wish you luck; I do not, at this point, envy you your administrator's enamel badge, special pencil case, and key to the staff loo. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The irony is that I've used no admin tools, nor do I intend to (in this incident).-- SPhilbrick  T  17:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! You're not getting away with that: I know that you people have magical powers! Otherwise why would there be a Secret Training Academy? Eh? ... On the IP user, I have written what might with luck be my last note on the subject and I hope very soon to go back full-time to thinking only about puppies and kittens. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not supposed to talk about the secret training academy. Oops. On the IP, unfortunately, I support the block of the the second IP. The IP can easily get an unblock for the main IP, which should result in an unblock for the second IP.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Extra chronology
You've made some serious mistakes while changing the Template:Extra chronology. Please, see for yourself how it looks now: The Bike Song. Please, repair this. Thank you.--Vitriden (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted at the talk page, I wasn't sure I did it right. I checked one page, but it probably hadn't rippled through the transclusion yet. I undid my change. I'll let someone else fix it.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User doesn't care about English
Hello! I saw your kind and considerate and helpful comment at User talk:Aciram. Thought you might want to know that she does not care. First she did this, then she proceeded to ignore what all of us are asking her again and did more such damage to Margaret of Connaught and Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (calling it "great expansion") just to flaunt the fact that she doesn't care. I don't know what to do with this user. Have tried for a long time to try in a nice way to interest her in being more careful. WP:AN/I next step? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you have a history with her, I do not. Let's see if my approach works. Let's hold off ANI, but again, I haven't seen all the history.


 * In the meantime, will you check out User:Sphilbrick/Louise_Mountbatten_test_LDR? I'd like to make the change, but I want someone else to OK it first, the problem is, I can't do it if there is an intervening edit, at least, not easily.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am neither qualified nor inspired to judge what you are doing there as antyhing else but highly beneficial. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Hello Sphilbrick, and thank you for your message!

I have checked the spelling mistakes I made at the article of Louise Mountbatten, and I must confess I am slightly embarrassed - I had no idea that they were so many of them. Rest assure that they are unintentionall. I must, however, also say that I am concerned by they way User:SergeWoodzing described me in regard to this matter. His description of the matter gives the impression that I am doing these mistakes out of spite and that I am unresonable. I do not in any way at all take offence by your request, and I am somewhat sad to note, from your tone, that you seem to take SergeWoodzing's description of my personal character for truth. This does not, really, belong to the matter, and I hope you will excuse me from bringing it up, but the tone he used, I am affraid, may have more to do with the fact that I have had dissagreements on Swedish wikipedia with SergeWoodzing, which may have caused him to use this somewhat judgemental tone regarding my characther, which I, for one, feel is rather unpleasant.

This all sounds very childish, I know, but the fact that SergeWoodzing seem to dislike me because of our history on Swedish wikipedia, does have the effect that I, in some sense, turn a blind eye to his messages, as I am used to them being of a hostile tone, regardless of their content. Thereby, I may indeed have missed some truthfull and relevant critic. Let me assure you again, that I am not at all the kind of person who would by intent use other users for my personal comfort and ignore their oppinions, in the way SergeWoodzing claims on the talk page of Louise Montbatten. I do value and respect everyone who may have an oppinion on my work. I have no objections what so ever to your concerns, but I do feel uncomfortable when I notice that SergeWoodzing in this way damages my reputation in regard to my behavior. I welcome critic from everyone neutral, but I am ashamed to say that the history between myself and SergeWoodzing prevents me from considering him neutral.

As for the matter in hand, I am not aware about what the rules and regulations of wikipedia say about these things. Your suggestion that I should install a spell-checker sounded excellent, but I am affraid that I am somehwat ignorant when it comes to these computor issues, and I may not understand your instructions, if indeed you would be so helpfull as to instruct me. If this means, that I will be blocked from editing wikipedia, I will of course respect this. I would feel comfortable if SergeWoodzing, or perhaps indeed yourself, reported me to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, were I can learn the rules and regulations regarding this. I am truly doing my very best, and my language, I think, are improving all the time. I am not in any way make spelling mistakes intentionally, and I am being as carefull as possible. I am ashamed that they were so many spelling mistakes, but it may not be able for me to correct this. If this means that I will be blocked, then I will accept this. Please rest assure that I am in no way such a bad contributor in regard to my charachter as SergeWoodzing describes. I will be gratefull if this case, as well as my value as a contributor as a whole, is discussed by the administrators at Wikipedia, so that I may no if I am to be blocked or not. You will not need to post an answer on my talkpage, I will watch your talkpage, if you will be so good as to answer. My very best greetings--Aciram (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The pretended innocence here is really very disturbing, as if these things had never been discussed before. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You said:


 * from your tone, that you seem to take SergeWoodzing's description of my personal character for truth


 * In a word, no. I neither accept nor reject the characterization of the reasons for how you edit.


 * SergeWoodzing stated a purported fact (your edits have many errors) and offered an opinion as to your motives.


 * Regarding the fact, I neither accepted nor rejected: I decided to check for myself. SergeWoodzing was right.


 * Regarding the opinion, I frankly don't even recall what it was in detail, as I skipped over it. I see many people offer opinions on why someone edits in a particular way, and they are often wrong. More importantly, it is rarely relevant. (Occasionally, but rarely.) I'm not saying SergeWoodzing is wrong, I'm not saying SergeWoodzing is right. I don't care. SergeWoodzing has a concern about the edits you add, and that concern is valid. Let's address it. So if there was any tone in my post to you, first I apologize, it was intended to be as neutral as possible, but second, it does not reflect an acceptance that I accepted anyone's opinion about the reasons for your posting approach.


 * First, how do you compose your posts? Do you type them directly into the edit box, or do you compose them in an external editor? The next steps depend on the answer. I've heard that some people type directly into the edit box. That astounds me, but my typing skills are atrocious, so when I type, I type into an editor, partly so I won't lose what I type if there's a connection glitch, partly so I can do a spell check and review it before I post. If you compose in an editor, tell me which one, and we will figure out if it has a spell check built-in. It probably does.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The pretended innocence here is really very disturbing, as if these things had never been discussed before. The user usually totally ignores any such criticism, or argues back in a personal way and brings up everything else and the kitchen sink. At least you've got a reply that looks concerned here. Bravo! SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Serge, please, let's stay away from characterizations. I'm not interested in the history, if I can play a part in changing the future. That may be naive on my part, but that's how I want to approach this. -- SPhilbrick  T  02:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good for you! And go for it! I only think it would be nice if your kind efforts were treated with the type of respect that is implied by truthful replies. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sphilbrink, I would be gratefull to learn! You where not any way offensive in your message. When I edit, I press on the "edit this page" on the top of the article, and simply edit in the "raw text" of the article below. I hope You can understand what I mean. --Aciram (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what that means. So now, I either have to persuade you that it is not a good idea to do that, or find out if your browser supports spell check (or both). You indicated that you are not particularly strong on computer issues, so forgive me if I try to make this simple and overshoot. Do you know which browser you use? Common ones are Mozilla FireFox and Internet Explorer, but there are several others. If you know, tell me, if you don't know what it means, I'll tell you how to figure it out. (We may have to continue this tomorrow, as it is getting late for me.)--  SPhilbrick  T  02:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when I enter the internet, I use the icon Mozilla Firefox at the "screen-desk" on my computer. I don't know If that is what you meant? Otherwise, please explain how I can find out which browser I use. --Aciram (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that answers the question perfectly. I thought Firefox had a spell checker built-in. In fact, I'm fairly sure of it. Let me do some homework to see if one needs to turn it on, or if it is language dependent.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do. Perhaps it needs to be turned on when it comes to English? I am writing from Sweden, and as I do not make any mistakes in my own language, perhaps that's why I have never noticed any. It would be excellent if I could turn it on to correct my English! Oh; when I wrote "great expansion" in my edit summary previously, I meant to say: "Big/large expansion", but I realise I may have misunderstood it; It is very embaressing to think I may have written "Excellent expansion" or something of that sort withouth intent. --Aciram (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is on for me by default, but if I were to type in Swedish, it wouldn't automatically use a Swedish spell checker, so let me look into what needs to be done.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the answer I wanted, so I have a question in to the Firefox help desk.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I will watch your user-page, it that's okay, if you recieve an answer from them. --Aciram (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Promise to poke me if I don't respond in a couple days, I have a lot going on and fear that if they don't respond soon, it may fall between the cracks.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am now trying to install this system. I am indeed a computor ilitterate, and this is very hard for me. It is also hard for me to explain, as I do not know the technical terms to describe what I am doing. I will try to explain. When I right-click on a word, several options will appear on a menu. One of the alternatives is : "Alternatives for spelling-control" (in my own language). When I click on this title, a sub menu will appear, with the alternatives "Swedish, American English and Australian English". There was no alternative of "British English", unfortunately; why is this? If I chose "American English", then the word I am writing will be marked with a red line if it is wrongly spelled, and alternatives of the spelling will appear over the menu, which I can click, after which the wrong word will change to that spelling. Now, I notice as I am writing this very sentence, all the words are marked with a red line if I spell the wrong, and alternatives are given immediately. I will simply click on the alternatives, and the wrongly spelled word are changed. Is this the correct method? In that case, I am only concerned about one thing; how to change things I have already written before this? But I suppose I can make a fresh start now. I would be such a relief if I have now found the right method! --Aciram (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the frustration one can have when working in a medium with which one isn't familiar. I am very familiar with computers, yet sometimes when I work with a new program, it is very frustrating, as the instructions often are written by someone with a familiarity with the subject, who presumes a similar familiarity by the reader. However, you seem to have accomplished exactly what I wanted you to accomplish.
 * As for the lack of a British English option, I'm disappointed and surprised. However, this should not be a major issue.
 * As for how it works, you have described it well. I only have one dictionary installed, so your explanation doesn't exactly mirror my own, but I am fairly sure that the difference is due tot he existence of the multiple dictionaries. (If you hacve to do multiple clicks to correct a word, that will be a problem for you, and we'll have to see if we can fix that.
 * As for correcting things you have already done, that's quite simple. Let me give you a very specific example. I'll describe in it another edit, in a couple minutes.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now corrected the spelling of the word embarrassed, as you can see above - and I am no longer embarrassed! Thank you, you do explain in a way I feel I can understand. The alternatives appears automatically now, and I no longer have to go through all the steps as I did in the beginning. Everything worked exactly as you described on the list below, with one exception; point number three on your list. No words at all was redlined automatically. I had to click on each of all the words one by one before the wrong spelled ones was lined with red. This does not happen when I write; then all the wrong spelled words are redlined automatically. --Aciram (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting (about step 3), I'm surprised, but if it works going forward, then we can both be happy. Again, it may be that the exact action is different when one has multiple dictionaries; I'm language challenged, and can barely deal with English.


 * Let's check one thing. When you click on edit, then right-click, is the check mark next to "check spelling" checked? If it is not, then click on the word to see if it turns it on. If it is checked, try unchecking then checking again.


 * If this doesn't work, don't worry about past edits, I'll go through some of the more recent ones, and I suspect the older ones have been fixed.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I did some cleanup to Sigrid Sture, Anna of Mecklenburg, Eva Dickson, Christina of Denmark, Queen of Sweden, Princess Margaret of Connaught, and Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tried to do as you say, but I am afraid that it does not work. This is sad, as I would have liked to correct my past edits as well, but I am very happy to be able to make a new start and avoid the same errors in the future, and I also thank you for your cleanups. You ask if you should clean up the quote from the article of Sophie Hagman. Please do. I am happily surprised to see that the spelling errors was not as large as I feared after SergeWoodzing's remark that I have damaged the articles, such as in the case of Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I often check my old edits to see if they have been corrected, so that I may learn from my mistakes, and thereby, I have learned by them as well, and my language have improved since my beginning as a contributor. Usually, it is my impression from the corrections, that the errors are not as many as they were at Louise Mountbatten. Even with the spelling checks, however, I may make an occasional mistake, for example in the case of where/were, when the words are alike and the spelling check would not be able to advise me which word would be correct to use. I do not think these mistakes would be that many any more, but I think they will still exist. Would it be acceptable for Wikipedia? SergeWoodzings attitude is now displayed on my talk-page, and it seems he believes that it is not acceptable to leave mistakes at all for others to correct. But he is contradicted, as you see, by another user on my talk-page. I fear I will leave one or two mistakes in my future edits for others to correct. I hope I can compensate that with the referenced information I ad. Wikipedia is after all a project were everyone contribute in the way they can. Would this be correct? Is it acceptable? --Aciram (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the spell check does not work on past contributions, but if my suggestions didn't work, I'd say let's move on. I appreciate that you are concerned about it. However, while after seeing Louise Mountbatten, I was concerned about what would be in prior edits, I was pleased to see that others weren't as serious. As for SergeWoodzing, I hope you can appreciate what the edits looked like through his eyes. He saw two things: 1. mounds of content belong added to articles of interest to him containing many, many errors, and 2. a belief that you weren't concerned about the errors. Were I in that position, I'd be rather emotional as well. I'll emphasize, with respect to point 2, that I do not care to figure out whether SergeWoodzing's belief had a plausible foundation or not; what I care about is that you are taking steps to materially reduce the number of errors that will be added. As you realize, even a spell checker will not catch where/were errors, but I hope that if the number of errors is significantly reduced, that others will be more willing to address the ones that remain, and that if they politely point them out to you on your talk page, that you will attempt to work on those issues as well.
 * Let's try something: if you make a major addition to any page, drop me a quick note and I'll take a look at it. I can't promise to do this forever, but I can identify the major remaining issues, and, over time, those may go away as well.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be relieved to move on, and also very pleased that I can now avoid any more of those past errors. I do believe that my future errors will be few, and I admit that I am not very worried now that I have a spell checker. You see, my problem has always been the spelling of the language rather than the comprehension of it, so the remaining problems will, I think, be much reduced. I have no problems at all with criticism, and I usually respond to it and adjust myself to it. So this would not be a problem, though I can not blame you for your advice, as your first impression of my character was the description given by SergeWoodzing. The history between myself and SergeWoodzing have, as you correctly point out, no relevance here, but it had a significant role to why I ignored his valid complaint. I believe SergeWoodzing are very competent in language issues, and I know he has a great interest in Swedish royalty, and have the very best interest at heart in regard to them. In Swedish Wikipedia he has also been repeatedly blocked for personal attacks and for breaking Wikipedia etiquette and civility. I am saying this just as a way to explain why I ignored his valid compliant about my spelling errors, not as a way to slander him, as you are of course not obliged to believe nor let yourself be influenced by a judgement from another language version of Wikipedia, nor should you be. Nevertheless, the reason to why I ignore his complaint was because past experience has given the impression that it is best not to get involved in communication, as a pure self defense mechanism, which is indeed very sad. But it also means that I would never ignore critic as a general principle. I do not feel comfortable in criticizing him nor any user in this way, and I hope you will excuse that. I do, however, believe that the characterization he gave of me, and the hostile way in which he criticized me, would be a break against the civility rules of Wikipedia. You have acted with perfect neutrality in regards to this issue, for which I am very grateful. As you see from my talk page, I have not received many complaints during my time here, except for the ones from SergeWoodzing. I often start articles, and great (by which a mean "large") contributions are not unusual for me to make. So although your offer are very generous, this would be quite a work load for you to take on, and nothing I feel I can ask of you. You are very welcome, however, to put my contributions list under watch for a while, and give me critic when ever you feel it is necessary. Indeed, as I say above, it is my habit to always go back to articles I edit and see if any of my edits have been copyedited and see if I can learn from them. I always to this, so the only thing you need to do is really to make an edit summary. I will always look at what is corrected by the "history" button anyway. --Aciram (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds great. I'm sorry that you and SergeWoodzing don't see eye to eye; I think both of you are interested in making Wikipedia a better place, and I'm encouraged that we are making progress.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Specific example

 * 1) Click on the word "edit" on the right side of the page, across from the word "reply"
 * 2) That should open a text box, containing your post to me
 * 3) You should see the word "embaressed" with a red squiggly line underneath it.
 * 4) Right-click on the word "embaressed" and it should open up a box with one or more suggestions and some other options.
 * 5) In my case, the suggestions are "embarrassed" and "resembled"
 * 6) You might have a different list, but I hope "embarrassed" is in the list.
 * 7) Left-click (or right-click, both seem to work) on "embarrassed" to replace it in the text
 * 8) Note that it is no longer underlined
 * 9) Type "ce" in the edit summary box. "ce" is short for copyedit, and most accept it as a common shortcut.
 * 10) Optionally, click the box next to "This is a minor edit" (Generally good practice for spelling errors}
 * 11) Click "Save Page"

While this sounds like a lot of steps, you don;t have to limit yourself to changing one word per edit. You could go through and correct every spelling error in one edit. Note, as you will guess, that words like "SergeWoodzing" are flagged, because they aren't in the dictionary. You can either skip over them, or click on the "add to dictionary" option so it won't flag them the next time.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break
I got an answer from the Firefox team. You may be able to see it here; I've copied the answer below:
 * You can see which dictionary is selected if you right-click in a text area and open the Languages submenu.
 * Open the "Add Dictionaries" link to install a dictionary if you do not have one.
 * Make sure that [X] "Check Spelling" in the right-click context menu is check-marked.

You can enable or disable spell checking globally:


 * Tools > Options > Advanced : General: Browsing: "Check my spelling as I type"

You can look here for dictionaries:


 * language-tools

See also:


 * Spell_checking
 * Dictionaries
 * Using+the+spell+checker