Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 November 20

= November 20 =

Anonymous edits by an IP user
Today I noticed that a user, 208.76.104.133, always ends his/her posts (usually constructive edits on the RefDesks) with "--Anonymous" followed by a timestamp, with an edit summary including "Inosine" which I gather means "I no sign". This seems to circumvent the identification of the edit, even by IP address. I thought it was appropriate to use the "unsigned" template to add this user's IP address to their posts, but the user reverted these edits with an edit summary that included "I said Inosine!". I am relatively new and don't know the proper etiquette here, so I thought I'd ask - is it appropriate for this user to prevent identification of their edits? --Scray (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with this, especially if as you say, the edits are constructive. Anyone can track down who left a particular comment no matter how long ago, either manually, or using a program like Wikiblame. Yes, it is good etiquette to sign, but there is nothing mandatory in policy requiring signing or enforcing placement of signing templates. It certainly shouldn't be foisted on the user against their wishes. It would be a very different matter if this was a vandal attempting to make it harder to locate their edits to talk pages. Let's also not forget that IP addresses are actually much less private than usernames, which can't be tracked at all (except by checkusers) unless the person has outed themselves in some way. By the way, you're probably correct about what inosine stands for in this instance, but there is Inosine.--02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:SIGN does not support the idea that "there's nothing wrong with this". The guideline says:
 * Any post made to user talk pages, article talk pages, or other discussion pages should be signed.
 * with the justification elsewhere being that not signing one's comments imposes extra difficulty on other users who want to communicate with one. Efficient communication between users is fundamental to Wikipedia's success. Wikipedia's editors don't get paid, therefore anything that makes their job even slightly harder can create a lot of damage. Therefore, other users might interpret a user's deliberate refusal to sign his or her comments as being mildly incivil. At a minimum there would have to be a pretty good reason for a user's insistence on degrading the efficiency of Wikipedia, because after all the guidelines and policies constitute the approach that has make Wikipedia one of the world's top sites. "I said Inosine!" does not even start to amount to a reason for rejecting the consensus, in my opinion, and the cryptic slogan adds another level of incivility by making it harder for other users to understand what the guideline-violator is doing. Would this matter? Well, there might be other Wikipedia users (for example, the vast majority who do sign) who also see something borderline hostile about a conscious refusal to sign, and this could motivate them to give the conscientious signature objector more scrutiny on other issues. If someone has an uncooperative approach to Wikipedia in one area, I'd wager they have other issues in other areas of Wikipedia. These things tend to run in bunches, which is probably one reason why humans evolved to have emotional intelligence. --Teratornis (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer the question about the user's edit summaries,  in an edit summary tells  to leave the post unsigned. (See User:SineBot.)  Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 04:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I consider that code ergonomically suboptimal, since it is not self-documenting in the edit summary. A better code would be to put in something that creates an actual link to document what is going on, such as, which could be a redirect to User:SineBot. Unlinked shortcuts and abbreviations are a real bane on Wikipedia, as they accumulate into a massive cryptolect which makes Wikipedia unnecessarily harder to learn. Having every unobvious thing link to its explanation enables a system such as Wikipedia to have discernible rules, an important precondition for achieving the gratifying sensation of psychological "flow". That is, all these cryptic unlinked secret codes are reducing Wikipedia's potential to create human happiness. This is the typical problem with the real world that many people come to Wikipedia (perhaps unknowingly) to escape from. In the real world, the rules are typically hard to figure out, so trial and error often becomes the only way to learn; on Wikipedia, all the rules can be in writing, so we can learn without necessarily repeating every past mistake. --Teratornis (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He does sign his edits. He uses an unlinked "Anonymous" followed by a time stamp, and its ALWAYS the exact same IP address; it is quite unambiguous who he is, he's not disruptive, and while its certainly a non-standard way to sign his posts, everyone can identify who he is.  This seems like a non-issue, since he is readily identifiable.  Indeed, given that he does not want to create an account (which is HIS prerogative), his method of signing the posts means that we can always easily identify him as a person even should his IP change.  It is certainly quite static lately, but should his ISP shuffle the addresses or should he edit from another location, he can still identify himself unambiguously this way.  Again, the proof is in the pudding here; his comments at the RefDesk are ALWAYS helpful, he is never disruptive, and he does good work.  Leave the fellow alone... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the notion that "Anonymous" is a signature. On the contrary, I would argue that it is the most likely word a different person would choose to do the same thing.  I (as the OP) am asking for guidance here in recognition of the fact that s/he is usually constructive except for the fact that the behavior we are discussing is not consistent with WP:SIGN.  A nice person may respond to guidance.  --Scray (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assertion that the anonymous user is not being disruptive: he or she was slightly disruptive, by creating a pointless mystery for Scray to ask us about. We could be doing something constructive instead of decoding the cryptic exception to the guidelines. We might not be the first or the last to trip over this. Note that refusing to sign is not as bad as his or her failure to document the refusal to sign. When people see an exception to the rules, they tend to wonder why they are seeing an inconsistency. The person who wastes other people's time by playing "look at me" this way is being incivil, in a mildly passive aggressive way. The civil approach to rejecting guidelines would be to answer the questions one raises by rejecting the guidelines, in this case by arranging the guideline-rejecting signature to be self-documenting. Note that it doesn't strictly matter what else the user is doing. For example, it doesn't matter that I have answered 3000+ questions on the Help desk, if I answer the next one poorly. If there's a way I can improve something I did, I should try to improve it. There is no resting on laurels when we make a mistake. If the user's comments on Reference desk are always helpful, then the user should be helpful when asked about why he or she is being unhelpful with the exceptional non-self-documenting signature. --Teratornis (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a RefDesk regular, I'd say "nonsense, no problem at all". Anonymous always uses a distinctive mark (for quite a while I thought they meant Inosine :) and I have never seen them being disruptive in any way. A question coming to the Help Desk points to absolutely no disruption in and of itself - it's just a question at the Help Desk. Considering Anonymous' long-time, frequent and helpful contributions at SciRef, I for one have no problem at all allowing them their little quirk of understanding SineBot's intricacies. There is no policy insisting that edits be signed, as noted above, the provenance is easily traceable. I'll stand to be corrected on unproductive edits, but I've yet to see one. Good editor, good edits = no problem. Franamax (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(de-indentation by OP) Thanks to all - I find the response from Franamax the most compelling - it's the RefDesk space in which this user is editing (constructively) that makes this otherwise uncivil behavior tolerable. If this were in article space, or even on Talk pages, the issue of civility would be more prominent. In fairness, I think I will make this user aware of the discussion, but I won't urge or expect any change in behavior. This has been educational for me. --Scray (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm the anonymous poster you're talking about here. First, a couple of facts. I do not always post from the same IP address, although in recent months I have almost always used only this one. I have used at least three others in the past, and often more than one in the same day depending on where I was at the time. And that is why I don't sign with the IP address; if I make multiple contributions to the same thread, I want them to be identifiable as from the same person, or it would be confusing.  Second, none of the IP addresses actually identifies me; they are all shared with others, so the part about "an IP address identifies you more than an account does" does not apply.  My reasons for not registering an account and for posting anonymously are personal and are not likely to change in the foreseeable future.
 * I did intend that the specific form "--Anonymous", with two hyphens and a capital A, or "--Anon" for short, would serve as a kind of signature identifying me, although of course someone else could choose to use the same thing, so there are no guarantees that it means me. (In fact, just once or twice I have seen someone else using it, but they haven't continued doing so.) As a further means of identification, I write the date and time in a format of my choosing (not always the same, but never the way that ~ does it). I could of course have used my real name or invented a nickname, but I chose to be honestly anonymous.
 * On the edits where I removed the IP-address tags that were added manually, my edit summary was "I said !nosine!", not "I said Inosine!". This alluded to the fact that I used !nosine! when I posted those items and also provided a second !nosine! so that Sinebot would not add an IP-address tag. Sinebot provides the option to use !nosine! and I felt it was my decision whether to do so, not someone else's to effectively take away.
 * To those who feel my decisions are uncivil, I apologize, but I'm continuing in the same way. To those who admired my contributions, thank you; it's nice to be appreciated.
 * Finally, it's only the Reference Desks where I use "--Anonymous"; on talk pages I do sign with ~ and if I have something more to add later then I make a point of using the same IP address that time or saying that I'm the same person. I guess I'll make an exception that this time, though:
 * That's all I have to say on this. --Anonymous, or, this time, --208.76.104.133 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I happen to be one of those users that wonders why Wikipedia allows ANY edits from unregistered users (the only reason I am not signed now is to avoid harassment or edit warring to anything I may contribute to by people who get pissed off by my opinion here). Other sites require registration to add content, so I guess I am stupid for not understanding why Wikipedia doesn't require it also. I guess I am just frustrated with the amount of vandalism and pure B.S. that gets put on here by "unregistered" users. (NOTE: This does NOT apply to anyone who has contributed to this section - this is a GENERAL opinion about Wikipedia...so please do not take offense. This just seemed like a good place to put what I wanted to say.) So - can someone explain why Wikipedia allows this? Again, most other sites require registration of some sort - but it takes too long for any action when a particular IP address vandalises or puts garbage into a Wikpedia subject. And if the bad action is not caught and reported almost instantly, nothing happens. They get 20 warnings on their Talk page, and generally never get blocked. My own opinion is two warnings, then a 1 to 2 week block. Or better yet, require everyone who wants to contribute to register. I just came across a blatant vandalism, saw that it happened several hours ago, so didn't bother to report it...just fixed it and left. It takes too much time when often no action is taken. I feel like I am fighting a losing battle at times, and it is discouraging me from using Wikipedia. And I sure I am not the only one who feels this way, even though we may be a minority.Maybe an admin can explain the reasoning to me, please. Thanks. 06:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.49.251 (talk)

My account won't fully function
Over the last couple of days some functions on my account have failed to work (e.g., Friendly, Twinkle and popups). I have used these functions on a regular basis. Logging out and in, changing browsers (IE8 and FF3), clearing cache all have made no difference. How do I get these functions to work again? SMP0328. (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a thought: in user preferences-->Gadgets-->Library and compatibility gadgets, do you have Compatibility Function enabled? Also, Twinkle has problems with users running ZoneAlarm, Norton Internet Security and other firewall and security software; have you installed anything new/changed any settings on anything like this?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No newly added security software or change in security settings. I don't have Compatibility Function enabled and never have. SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE - While the problem I described above exists in Firefox 3.0.4 and Internet Explorer 8 (Beta 2), my account functions properly in Safari 3.2. SMP0328. (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you using the Noscript Firefox extension? If so, you need to allow wikipedia.org to run scripts. Possibly a similar security setting for scripting in IE. --GraemeL (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bingo! I had told NoScript to allow Wikipedia, but it was still blocking Wikimedia. I have corrected that. Thanks GraemL. SMP0328. (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sitenotice
How to make the MediaWiki:Sitenotice reappear? (I hid it, and i dont know how to get it back ) Thanks--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The gadgets tab in Special:Preferences. Algebraist 03:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cant find it there :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek Jacob (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sortable table - multiple header rows
With respect to this page, I want a sortable table. The heading is two-level (combination of rowspan=2 and colspan=2 elements) but clicking the sort tabs seems to put data into the second row of the table header. Am I missing something?

I don't see much at Help:Sorting, which uses single-row headers in all the examples. All I can see is this, which is a little confusing. Why are header rows being sorted anyway? (And should I be asking this at WP:VPT instead?)

Thanks for your help! Franamax (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll find out the answer to the last question if nobody answers the other questions here. I've also wondered about how to make a sortable table that has multiple column-spanning header rows. The only solution I can think of offhand would be to try using nested tables. That is, make separate nested tables for the sortable content, and for the header stuff. You might have to specify column widths in pixels to get the header columns to line up with the columns in the nested table of content. There might be a less dorky solution for all I know; that's what I'd look at if you've already read the friendly manuals and found nothing. --Teratornis (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had noticed a similar problem with the long table in Wind power, which cries out to have sortable columns (so one can see how the rankings of wind power capacity by country have changed with the years), but I hadn't mustered the effort to experiment yet, so let us know what you find. --Teratornis (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You mentioned Help:Sorting. Did you study Help talk:Sorting? It seems to have something about colspan. Often I have found that the talk pages for help pages and project pages contain additional discussion about bugs and so on. You might also try asking your question there. People who know something about this sort feature might frequent the talk page. --Teratornis (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I checked through 3-5 talk page threads and didn't see anything good. I'm at a loss as to why this hasn't come up before. Maybe everyone has used your "dorky" solution, though pixel-specs I think are double-plus-ungood per style. I'll wait a bit watching here, then try VPT. Thanks for your help! Franamax (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seems to have a lot of room left for being the first person to solve a problem. I routinely run across things that haven't been done yet that I can hardly believe are still waiting for me to tackle them. An example is/was the relative lack of navigation templates in a number of articles I found interesting. So I started a few like Peak oil, Wind power, and Electricity generation. These navboxes seem (to me, anyway) to add so much value to their articles that I can't imagine how those articles languished for years without them. But I guess nobody among the (thousands?) of users who looked at those articles had thought to do it before I did. Oh well, I guess I'm not thinking of any number of other improvements that will be equally obvious to someone in the future. --Teratornis (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of edits
When I enter on the main page: Special:Statistics

I get the number of articles.

How can I get the number of edits? Thanks in advance: --Muki123 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Calculating the number of edits for prolific contributors already puts a serious strain on the servers. Doing the same for all edits is impossible without causing the entire site to crash. That particular statistic cannot be found with magic words (like the one you used - . Have yout tried Statistics (the underlying link)? - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The magic word works: . The servers keep track of this anyway, so calling the magic word puts no strain on them. The reason getting edit counts for specific users can be a problem is the servers don't keep track of that number, so you have to actually count them one by one, which involves a lot of accessing of the database. Algebraist 12:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Muki123 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Patrol hotkey
Is there a hotkey for patrolling a page? the skomorokh 12:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but here's a short script you can add to your monobook.js to give it a hotkey:


 * Replace  with the key of your choice (in quotes).  Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! I've done what you advised, bu I have Firefox's "search for text when I start typing" feature on, so when I press the key (e.g. '['), it does not patrol anything. I was thinking I could use some sort of combination, such as ctrl+[. Would it be possible to alter the script to allow for that? Again, thanks! the skomorokh  18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You use the hotkeys by holding down some modifier keys and pressing the key. If you're using Windows, pressing Alt and Shift should do it. So in this case, press Alt+Shift+[ to patrol a page. Not sure what combination of keys is used on other platforms, but it's probably something similar. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 01:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

HI
How do i use wikipedia to find my name no. and to locate a new home and business and whats beat for my? Thank you for your help.Winston —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.67.83 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you are notable enough that someone has written an article about you, and famous enough that you have been mentioned in verifiable sources, the sad fact of the matter is, you probably DON'T use it for that. (This is in answer to the part about the name, number, home, and business; I have no idea what you mean by "...and whats beat for my".) Wikipedia is not a Yellow-Pages, not a directory of people, and not a neighborhood guide. It is an encyclopedia, similar to paper encyclopedias. You wouldn't be able to find your personal info in Encyclopedia Brittanica; you also won't be able to find it here. Sorry. GJC 01:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Threatening message
When I accessed the site a minute ago, and before I had even logged on to identify myself, I found the following message waiting for me:

''This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia once again, as you did to St Bernard's Convent School, you will be blocked from editing. TedFrank 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.137.214.225"''

Now, this is not a shared IP address - it is my personal laptop, which nobody else is able to access. I have never made a disruptive edit on any article, and in particular have no knowledge whatsoever about any St Bernard's Convent School.

What's going on? Maid Marion (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it more than likely is a shared IP address. What happens is that every time you log onto the internet, your provide gives you an IP number to identify you - when you log-off, that number is then used by someone else. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the message is pretty standard, and I wouldn't view it as "threatening". Just ignore it - your account isn't affected (unless the IP in question ends up being blocked, I suppose). Tan   &#124;   39  16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, checking the report - you are with BT who use dynamic IP addresses - this means that your ip address changes randomly when you use the internet. This also means that you can be given an ip that has been used before by someone who has vandalised the site. I wouldn't worry about it - it happens all the time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the very prompt responses. I'm still bewildered by the technology of this, but at least you all sound pretty reassuring!Maid Marion (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see the edits by the IP address at Special:Contributions/86.137.214.225. Somebody did indeed vandalise from that address shortly before the quoted warning from March 2007. Some ISPs give static (constant) IP addresses and some give dynamic (changing). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding colour button to the wikipedia toolbar
I would like to add a button to the toolbar.: ie. the toolbar when you edit a page. (see images bellow)

.........

This button would open up (like a flash button) and allow you to chose what colour of text you would like to insert. How can I add this for just my account? for everyones account? I can't seem to find the proposal page for such things, where should I propose this change? --CyclePat (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to do that, but you may want to ask at WP:Village pump (technical). That's where a lot of changes are proposed. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I guess I'll be off to get some water at the village pump!!! --CyclePat (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think such a button is available in the extra buttons user script. - Mgm|(talk) 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Template usage on Userpages
Hi, i've created a template at Template:TUGS-Member, to be placed on a user's userpage if they contribute to the TUGS WikiProject. For some reason, when this is done a message flags up telling me that the page should be moved to the user's talk page. But it shouldn't, that's not what its for. The only option round it is to add parameter "|category=no", but we don't want to do this either as this would remove them from Category:WikiProject TUGS participants - as well as mean that the user would have to add the category parameter on to the template every time it was added by a new user. Some examples of the template flagging up a problem can be seen at User:FelixCheng, User:Rusty5, User:PercytheGreen. What is the problem? --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   17:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You probably based this template on one that should be on a talk page and accidentally copied along the code. I'm not too savvy with templates like that, but I'll take a look to see if I can cut out the part that is causing trouble. - Mgm|(talk) 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't excise anything. You've based the entire template on a talkpage meta-template which automatically causes this behavior. If you want to solve this problem, you'd have to build the template from scratch without including this particular part. - Mgm|(talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any idea how exactly i would be doing that then? --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   18:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You based this template on WPBannerMeta, which is an article talk page banner template. You need to use Userbox, something like this:

Yes i know, i was going to make a userbox at some point. The fact is, WikiProject Thomas uses the same kind of template, and is also used on the three userpages which i mentioned above, and these don't have a similar message. Do you have any idea why this would be? --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The others are not based on WPBannerMeta; Thomas-project-member is just a message box. WPBannerMeta includes code to check the namespace and give an error if it is placed on other than a talk page. Bottom line: WPBannerMeta is only for project banners that go on article talk pages. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  01:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Start from scratch. Understood. Thanks! --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 4 Help Desk archive missing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/November_2008#November_4 Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see the archive, but it does appears that one of the section links is broken. Is that to what you were referring?  TN ‑  X   - Man  17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of them work. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I think I figured out what happened - a user blanked most of the archive, causing the links to break. I think I've fixed it, please let me know if this helps. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  18:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia.org
Anyone knows any page that automatically lists all the subdomains of wikimedia.org? (Just *.wikimedia.org - not any folders.) -- Menti  sock  19:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a page that does that. However, the village pump might. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. :-(  TN ‑  X   - Man  02:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Table of Wikimedia projects? &mdash; neuro(talk) 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No... I'd like the subdomains of wikimedia.org... so as an example, results.labs.wikimedia.org. -- Menti  sock  19:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

hi
is there anything regarding aim of waging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.151.30.3 (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your question. This is a page for asking questions about using Wikipedia. If you have a question about a specific area of knowledge, you may want to try the reference desk. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bogus Edits/Pages
The page Bank layer accumulation is bogus and should be deleted.

Edits by user Cretaceousturkey should be reviewed to see if they follow Wikipedia's policies: I suspect that the user meets the criteria to be cautioned/banned.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.81.100.100 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have proposed that Bank layer accumulation be deleted, and will remove the edits of the user in question. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Glass  Cobra  20:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I already reverted his one other edit. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noting that there are no tags on this article, is it for real? Mjpresson (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The PROD was removed, I will send to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Who merges?
This article was decided upon merging with The Horrors. May any editor do this after the decision is made? Mjpresson (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also see WP:MERGE, especially the section titled Performing the merger for the technical way to perform the merger yourself. Please follow these instructions TO THE LETTER.  This can get very messy if you do not; and leave EXPLICIT notes in the edit summary for every edit, so that changes can be tracked per our GFDL license. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image attribution in ibox
Folks, is there any policy dealing with the addition of attributions to images in information boxes. See for example Robert Klein. IMHO adding attributions could be viewed as a form of promotion on behalf of the image owner. Thoughts please...
 * The policy is that attribution should be on the image page only. See WP:Captions. Algebraist 21:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * again - you are on fire today! – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And in good Prime Minister's Questions form, a follow-up question please: is it appropriate for the creator of an image to use their name in the image name, [[Image:FaranTahirByPhilKonstantin2.jpg]] for example? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see any problem with that. It's not mentioned in Image file names. Algebraist 09:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading links
Is it good practice to include midleading wikilinks, where a reasonable case could be put forward for them? For example, MIT alumni include one former president of Harvard University....... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.192.55 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything misleading. It is possible for a Harvard president to have studied and graduated from MIT. - Mgm|(talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "MIT alumni include one former president of Harvard University" would be better in my book. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Duncan. His version is much more clear as to where the reader is going to go when they click on the link.  The OP's example is misleading.  I would think that the link would go to Harvard and not to the person.  Dismas |(talk) 00:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Piped link. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  00:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)