Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 2

William Birch
William Birch (1765-1834), enamel painter and engraver: practised after 1794 in Philadelphia; received Society of Arts medal, 1785.
 * He has prints out on the web, two examples are:

Are the images on the web PD-old? --evrik (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.philaprintshop.com/birch.html
 * http://www.geocities.com/bobarnebeck/archwharf1.jpg


 * The issue isn't just the age of a painting, it's also the age of the photograph of the painting. That isn't a definitive answer (I'm not particularly experienced here), so you might want to take the question to Media copyright questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At least for images in the US, if the photograph is a faithful reproduction of a public domain image, there is no copyright attached to the photograph. If the photo introduces some element of artistic invention, then the photo may be copyrightable. The status of photographic reproductions of public domain works in other jurisdictions may differ. As John indicated, Media copyright questions is the place to ask such questions. older ≠ wiser 15:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. If the point of the photograph or scan is simply to record the existing two-dimensional image, it is not considered a derivative work and the photographer doesn't get new rights.  The images by Birch clearly appear to be PD-old. - BanyanTree 11:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you all. --evrik (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bots
Hello. I'm trying to get a bot working on other wiki-project but I need help from an experience botuser who's designed one with C# in Windows. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably want to post at Bot owners' noticeboard, or another discussion page relating to bots. I would first look through the currently operating bots and see if there is one that is already doing what you are thinking about, and approach the owner of that bot.  Note that approval requests specify the language used, a Google search might be useful.  There is certainly no obligation to help off-Wikipedia users, but many bot owners will share their code or offer help for specific problems as a matter of course.  - BanyanTree 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Marking user warnings as minor
"User warning" here is defined to be any edit that consists solely of the addition of a pre-written message to a contributor's discussion page in response to intentionally unconstructive editing.

I've always marked user warnings as minor. It's the default behaviour for the most widely-used anti-vandalism tool. However, it would appear that some users consider this to be inappropriate. Can I get some sort of consensus on this? – Gurch 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, user warnings are minor edits. I suppose if I had to make an actual argument based on written guidelines, etc about it, I'd say that, since Help:Minor edit lists "Removing vandalism" as an appropriately minor change, informing the user who made such a minor change cannot be more important than actually removing the change.  Or to put it another way: "If reverting a a user who writes 'My math teacher smells' in an article is trivial (aka minor), then telling the user to stop adding comments about his math teacher to articles is obviously just as trivial."  It's trivial for the encyclopedia.  It's trivial for the warning user, who may be dealing with dozens of such cases in a short period of time.  It might be a big deal in the mind of the warnee, but vandals give up any right to be heard in a discussion on Wikipedia once they vandalize.  I suppose that there may be occasions where a warning may be a big deal, due to prior history or context, but in such cases one shouldn't be using boilerplate anyway.  If anyone is in a situation where they feel that placing a tag might not be minor, please don't: write an actual message explaining what is going on and why.  - BanyanTree 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Help:Minor edit says, "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." People review and dispute vandalism warnings all the time.  Removing blatant vandalism is given explicitly as something that can be marked as minor, but adding a warning to a user's talk page is not.  Also, people may opt to hide minor edits when viewing recent changes or when looking in their watchlist, which means new warning marked as minor may not be seen by someone who is watching for one, which seems to me to be another good reason why someone shouldn't mark a warning as minor.  Getting rid of vandalism is different from posting a warning, so just because one can get marked as minor doesn't mean that the other can be too.
 * Also, AzaToth himself, the creator of Twinkle, does not mark warmings as minor (an example). I just installed and tested Twinkle myself, and no, it does not mark vandalism warnings as minor by default (see my test here).
 * For the record, I am the "some users" Gurch is referring to. -- Hi  Ev  04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin deletion of user page content
Question - can an admin delete the content of a user page, so that it cannot be retrieved? Case in point is User:Nicole 50dc. The content there was used earlier today to recreate a page (since speedied away) that was deleted as a result of this AfD yesterday. The user, an SPA and likely sock (see the IP edits in the AfD), is editing the page and will probably try the same thing again. Would nominating it as an MfD be the appropriate thing to do, or is there a quicker way? Thanks for any guidance. --Smalljim 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - following advice, I've put the page up for MfD. It's a bit quiet here, isn't it! Smalljim 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification - reading it again I guess the above wasn't very clear. It might sound like a naïve question about deleting a subpage - it isn't that: the content referred to is on a user page, not a subpage. I know that subpages can be deleted by admins, but a user page obviously shouldn't be deleted outright (unless it gets automatically recreated, I suppose ... ah yes, that's probably it!). Anyway this is really -now- a general question about whether content, as opposed to the page that hosts it, can be irretrievably removed by an admin. But maybe I'm having a senior moment and that's a dumb question too? --Smalljim 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Page content can be selectively deleted, see Selective deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's excellent, thanks. I'd got myself caught up on the idea of content, not versions. So it's possible, but longwinded. Just how it should be, I suppose. TVM --Smalljim 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can archival material be edited?
This thread moved to Village pump (policy) where it belongs. --Richard 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't Log In
On my home computer (I'm using a public one right now using my public computer sock. My main is User:Malinaccier), I can't log in. I type the password in and everything works fine, but the page won't fully load telling me that I've signed in. All the rest of the Wikipedia pages also freeze. I'm not sure that this is the right place to post this, but I need some help. Thanks! •Malinaccier Public• T / C  13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Schools
Anyone know where I can download Wikipedia for Schools? The torrent that I have only ever has half a dozen peers and no seeds. — PhilHibbs | talk 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You might check this page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also contact Bozmo with a postal address to be mailed a free copy on a physical DVD. --BozMo talk 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating a wikipedia
I am working with some folks to create a wikipedia style site to create a compendium of the histyr of a major metropolitan region. This will begin as a schools project, but we aim to open it to the general public after a year.

Having no experience in wiki potentially this vast, I was wondering if anyone out there does have such experience and might be avilable for consultation and advice.Harrycpayne 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that your best option is MediaWiki's own help and support.  Adrian M. H.  11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Genre police
I would like to get some insight on what (or even if) avenues exist that can stop someone from editing mostly music related articles and changing the genres to what that user sees fit. The user Lizard Andrea seems to want to see this paticular field as 'genres according to Lizard Andrea' and any change from that, no matter the consensus, will be change back by me. If you check the contribs, you can see that this user hits the same articles the way (I assume it's a) she wants to even though they almost always subsequently get reverted/undone. I've put in for an RfC (Request for Comment) from the Wiki-community, but due to the relatively low profile of these edits, no-one has bothered to warn her about this besides me which is not enough to meet the threshold for this action. Is there any recourse for this because I have no desire to get into warring on articles? Lastly, I really don't consider these vandal edits and I thought they were in good faith but there seems to be an agenda involved as of late, personal or otherwise. τßōиЄ 2001 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * She should be pointed to WP:OWN and dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Database server lag over 45 minutes
I can view and edit articles but when I ask for my watchlist, I get this message:
 * Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 2694 seconds might not be shown in this list.

Anybody know what's going on and whether anybody is working on this? Where is the right place to notify the appropriate people about this? --Richard 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My personal answer is that I just wait it out. You're never alone when this happens - it means the database and/or server are mucked up a bit and they're well aware when that happens.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, similar discussion here. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 Wikipedia for Schools
Make a lasting impact on the world! We guestimate the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools has helped several million children, including a couple of hundred thousand rural poor kids from http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/news14.html, distribution to schools in South Africa, India & Pakistan and a million or so online browsers at http:/schools-wikipedia.org plus tens of thousands of downloads and several thousand physical DVDs sent to networks. So who is lining up to start with the long process of the 2008 DVD? Please leave me a note if you feel you can contribute in a subject area: the main task is identifying lists of articles and historical versions which are free from vandalism. These versions last... the 2006 CD version still gets 5000 unique IP browsers a day. --BozMo talk 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I really hope you consider the content at Veropedia. In fact, one could argue that Veropedia (with which I have no association whatsoever) is doing exactly what you're looking for, and you should use (and add to) their articles rather than re-creating the wheel (so to speak). -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

posting an article.
My name is shahebaz and uid shahebaz1985. I had a project in manufacturing planning and control on the topic capacity planning requirement. It was a successfull project. I want to post this with different references and links which have been used to create it. I dont have any idea about the license as this is the first time i had a thought of posting the article because i could'nt find it on wikipedia. I have collected all the required information from different books and links. I have one more query. Is it possible to get it checked by some professional that is the article which i'm suppose to post is correct or not. Is there any changes have to be made? To clear my confusion and to help me out you people can contact me on my email id:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahebaz1985 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that your article constitutes original research. While Wikipedians encourage the spread of learning in all venues, Wikipedia is explicitly not a venue for the publication of original research. There are other places which might be open to such information; but we are compiling already-published information here. -- Orange Mike 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As Orange Mike said, your paper may constitute original research. However, if you can present the topic as a notable subject, using collection of facts taken from reliable sources, without any synthesis of sources to advance a new claim, then your research can probably used to create a valid Wikipedia article.  If you want the facts checked when you complete it you can use the expert-subject tag to attract editors who may be able to help. --  Hi  Ev  22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting code issue
Hey Guys! I'm trying to fix Infobox Artist Discography in the graphical sense, but can't seem to figure out how. What I'm trying to do is make sure the rows all appear as the same heigh, but every so often, the lines get blown out in size (see some of the articles that links there to see what I'm talking about). Anybody know how this can be fixed, retaining the knockout function (i.e. the way that it doesn't show unnecessary lines). (ps: I put this note up yesterday at WT:ALBUM, but as per usual, they're taking their sweet time responding). -- linca linca  13:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation policy
I am wondering if there is a policy on when to translate pages (to English) that are mainly of interest to a specific country. For instance, articles on the various municipalities of Finland are present on the Finnish Wikipedia, but generally not on the English Wikipedia.

Since English could be considered the closest thing to a "world language" we got I think it makes sense to translate these "local" pages to English, as many more readers will be able to understand the content. It is frustrating to seek knowledge on a local topic that turns out to be described only in a language you don't understand.

But is there a policy on when to do these translations? If there is I haven't found it. Perhaps there is a risk of cluttering the English Wikipedia with articles that are too local in nature? Relrel 10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since consensus/precedent supports, rightly or wrongly, articles for any and all places, towns, regions and so on, I can see no major issue with what you propose. As long as it meets the usual core policies (WP:V, etc.)  Adrian M. H.  11:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Editors are encouraged to add non-English-language countries' small towns and municipalities.  Corvus cornix 19:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And the same goes, of course, for translating articles from the Suomi Wikipedia into the Esperanto Wikipedia, whose advocates argue that Esperanto, by design and practice, is the true international language. Better to spread the knowledge of Finland to all the world, just as we each wish to share the knowledge of our beloved homelands. -- Orange Mike 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course - making articles on every single municipality in a country is a very big task - for the US it was done by User:Rambot - the best way to go would be to find whatever raw data (coordinates, area, population, demographics, etc) can be used to make the articles, make a program that generates articles in an appropriate format, get approval for the task, etc. Rather than trying to make a few by hand each day. —Random832 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with Article
I recently removed the trivia section from the Boy Meets Boy (TV series) article. It was all unsourced and as it referred to living people, the best course seemed to be to remove it, as the first step in an attempt to improve the article for the Television Project. User:Otto4711 immediately reverted the removal saying he disagreed with the assessment. I reverted stating "discuss on talk page, this trivia also violates WP:Living", which I felt it did by making statements about living people that were unsourced and could be seen as controversial. Otto4711 reverted again, saying to leave it alone. Then he goes to the talk page and simply posts "let's discuss."

While trying to type up a message on the talk page to explain the removal and the reasons behind it, I reverted his revert (at this point, its a minor edit war), noting that violations of living must be removed immediately. He again reverted, claiming they items were sourced, then went back and added in some bad sources for the trivia claims (one is from IMDB, while the other two only partially support the items in question). Meanwhile, he is being increasingly incivil both on my talk page (and and in the article talk page, refusing to listen to reason and discuss ways of rectifying things.  I attempted to explain the need for reliable, neutral sources for statements about living people and ever offered ways the two fairly useful bits of trivia could be incorporated into the article.

He finally seemed to understand and left the trivia off, so I went on with improving the article, giving it a lot of clean up and structure fixes. Now, he's put the trivia back again claiming it is "properly" sourced. I'm not bothering to revert again. I removed the unsupported statement and the IMDB reference, which he again reverted, sticking in another hastily found (or made up) source.

As a side note, a previous editor had tagged the trivia section, which Otto4711 also removed, saying three items were reasonable (and not addressing what the tag actually says). He also seems to remove or revert any edit he disagrees with, and, I feel like he is displaying WP:Ownership issues over the article.

I know I probably should have given up reverting earlier when it became obvious that he wasn't going to really attempt to discuss anything, but other than that, I attempted to remain civil and tried to see his side of things, but he never gave any reason for keeping the trivia beyond his just wanting to. I've given up any attempt to dialog with him and will not bother continuing to work to improve the article until the issue is resolved, so any feedback and/or assistance appreciated. Collectonian (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Statements (trivia or otherwise) only violate WP:BLP/WP:Living when those statements are negative. There might be verifiability issues, but this particular policy doesn't apply. A better course of action would be to look for sources and incorporate trivia into the main article text. - Mgm|(talk) 13:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Thanks, that helps clarify the BLP for me. :-) I did want to note, though, that another editor also came and tagged the trivia section, but once again Otto has removed it. At the minimum, I think the section should be tagged so other editors might be encouraged to incorporate the items into the article itself. Collectonian (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * MacGyverMagic (Mgm) is wrong about WP:BLP only counting when the statements are negative. The policy says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,(2) talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis in original)  The only difference between negative statements and non-negative statements in WP:BLP is that the three-revert rule does not apply to repeated reverts where the removed information is derogatory.  That being said, any unsourced material about living persons should be removed until someone can cite a source for it.  Currently it looks like all material in the trivia section is sourced.
 * Furthermore, you are right that the trivia tag should not have been removed. It is a trivia section, and as long as it exists it should be tagged as such, regardless of the number of items in it.  However, while trivia sections are discouraged, they are not outlawed.  Anything deleted from the article should probably be done for notability or other reasons, not simply because it's in a trivia section. --  Hi  Ev  23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't have to be negative, but it _does_ have to be contentious - and just because someone wants to remove it doesn't automatically mean it's contentious (and, I thought the 3RR exemption didn't make the distinction on whether it's negative either) —Random832 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Template problem
DisambigProject is putting pages like Talk:Acacius (a lot of pages like that) into Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. That's wrong.

There were two edits to the template on November 16th, the first (I think) to fix this problem and the second (I think) primarily for aesthetic reasons. Would someone more experienced take a look and see what needs to be done? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The tags are OK. Cache issue?  Adrian M. H.  00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done the WP:PURGE thing, so it's not an issue on the client side, I think. (And I'm using both Firefox and Opera.) Is there a multi-day lag in when the template change impacts the pages? (I assume that other editors are seeing the talk pages in this category as well.) -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The job-queue thing was in the back of my mind as a possible cause, but I don't know enough about that.  Adrian M. H.  21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that too. I made that first edit on the 16th, and it was indeed intended to fix the problem, but it is sure taking a long time to update. I was thinking about giving it a few more days to see if it fixes itself. Arthena(talk) 22:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Talk:Acacius has dropped out of the category, with the template still on its talk page, so that's progress. There are still a bunch of other talk pages in the category, but (perhaps I'm imagining) it looks like the software is starting at A and working its way through the alphabet. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Cleanup" and "Advert" tags?
What's the policy about who can or when to remove "Cleanup" and "Advert" tags? Two months ago I wrote the article Anti-stuttering devices. I had it peer-reviewed, a variety of changes were made, and no one has made any changes in over a month. Can we get rid of the tags now?--TDKehoe (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone can remove tags provided they have addressed the concerns in them. Hut 8.5 10:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This almost qualifies as a FAQ. I think that the tags should say under what conditions they can be removed, or at least have a link to a page with further instructions for tag removal after a good-faith effort. &mdash; RJH (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove the tags.--TDKehoe (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spacialpage:booksources
Hi, I want to add a new booksource for Turkey, but this page seems to be locked. Can someone add "Izmir Institute of Technology Library" to to book source list?

Here's the search string:

http://bliss.iyte.edu.tr/cgi-bin/bliss/w3advanced?firsthit=0&ready=-1&a=%2Feasy.php%3Fbank%3DIYTELIB&p=0&e=0&b=OG0&c=OG0&k=*&n=*&database=IYTELIB&seachindex=%2F%2F&yontem=K&query=0136299814&maxhits=100&vol=1&outputformat=1&z=A

replace 0136299814 with required query string.

Thanks;

Iytenet (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When an article is protected against editing, you should post a note about any changes to the article at the talk/discussion page for that article, not here. Please re-post in the correct place. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an article, it's a special page: Special:Booksources. Tra (Talk) 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have a talk/discussion page either. Iytenet (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The special page is simply an input box to interact with Book sources. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Box - Headers and Box Footers Problem
Hi,

Could you please help me on the working of the box-headers and box-footers on the Portal pages. As when I am trying to replicate those on my local wiki, the contents are not getting inside the boxes....... :(

Thanks in advance... Krishna... ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What does Template:Tooltip-article do?
Hi, somebody has put this template ( at WP:TFD. It appears to be some integral part of the wiki, and is protected. Does anyone know what it actually does, and whether it is safe to delete? TFD discussion found here. Thanks -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How to Find Subsequent Contributions
After readin an article, how do I access additional user additions.comments/corrections? Thanx for a prompt reply. Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghentbois (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 November 2007
 * I'm not sure what you mean? Have you tried clicking on the 'discussion' or 'history' tabs at the top of the article's page? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard way of viewing a page is in its newest format, so to distinguish individual corrections and changes, see the history section. To see how the article was originally, you need to go to the earliest version available (on many pages, you need to click "Earliest" in the section in History under the table (i.e. the  '(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 150) (next 150)'  section) and click on thea earliest date/edit/version. But at any given point, if you click on an article, you'll see its most recent version. To track the page, you can access its RSS feed from the history page's toolbox (under the search field on the left). I know this isnt as prompt as you wanted, but I hope it helps. -- linca linca  07:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Football image copyright issues
Not too sure where to post this, but here goes.

Many pictures of football (soccer) players are taken by fans inside the ground. However, only photographers with licenses are allowed to distribute pictures taken inside football grounds (in the UK at least) due to rights issues.

So should all images taken "from the stands" be deleted? Duke of Whitstable (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Such pictures, when out in the public, either are or aren't copyright violations. It sounds like they are; if so, then the fact they were taken by individuals willing to release them as free content is irrelevant; the individuals didn't have rights to the pictures other than for personal use that they could give up.


 * But I'm neither a lawyer nor an expert on copyrights as applied to Wikipedia content. So I suggest (re)posting at Media copyright questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The law is grey here. You can't take a photo from the ground, however if you have (albeit illegally), it doesn't cease to be your property, and therefore it's your's to distribute as you see fit. The U.K. government would prosecute you for taking the photo, if it sees fit, but no law is in place stating you can't distribute as the physical image itself, though gained by illegal means, still remains your's. -- linca linca  07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mangled reference formatting
I've been at WP for quite some time now, but I don't know how to fix this. The article Spanish language's references after about 18 display as a horrible mess, for me at least. Would someone mind fixing it? - Oreo Priest  06:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Need help recruiting
I need to recruit editors to create and develop lists for the set known as Lists of basic topics (part of Wikipedia's navigation system). There's a wish list at WikiProject Lists of basic topics.

I've posted notices at WP:CBB, Requested articles, and Requests for expansion. I've posted the WikiProject at List of shortcuts/Project shortcuts and WikiProject.

What else can I do?

How else can I find editors to join this WikiProject and/or create these lists?

I look forward to your ideas.

The Transhumanist 06:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1000 first limited access to Special:Listredirects
A problem has been reported about the list of redirects: Special:Listredirects, on this page Wikipedia talk:Special:Listredirects. It explains:"limited to displaying only the first 1,000 entries? Currently the list ends before reaching the letter C. "

Wikipedia redirect is a very relevant list for anybody interested in semantics. Does anybody have a clue how this could be fixed so that anybody could access the full list? Or does anybody have a clue how this list can be accessed through another way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiquestion (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to do this programatically with the API. See the help page. (The url would be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&apfilterredir=redirects&aplimit=500&apfrom= whatever). MER-C 12:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I think you are leading me on the right track. But could there be a way to get the name of the page instead of 'pageid="5878274"'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiquestion (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see: Help:Special page hasn't been refreshed from m:Help:Special page since June 2007, so it doesn't list this special page, which apparently is new. The page at Meta describes it as "lists all redirects", which would make the report absolutely huge (at last count, the ratio of articles to redirects was roughly 1:1). The list looks alphabetical (A to C) only because it's listing the oldest redirects first, and apparently the very oldest were created in some sort of (roughly) alphabetical sequence.


 * In short, as it is now, absolutely worthless, unless one is interested in the 1000 very oldest redirects. Why someone didn't just write a filter for Special:Allpages, to just show redirects, is unclear. All in all, a rather odd solution in search of some sort of problem, I guess. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam
I know that this may not seem relevant to be in this subject, but I asked in Editor assistance/Requests and I was refered to the Reference desk. The closest place that I could find to ask this question was on this page. Here's my question again:

In the article Sam, there is currently a dispute as to whether or not the opening paragraph, "Sam is primarily a male given name and may refer to:" is an assertion that needs to be referenced. Personally, I think that this is an acceptable assertion, except that Wikipedia policy requires that any disputed assertion requires a reference and this assertion is under dispute. However, other editors say that it doesn't require a reference. At this point, it is effectively down to, "Yes it does," and "No it doesn't," with no end is sight. Because I don't want to engage in any more edit-warring, I'm asking for assistance. What discussion there has been (except in the edit-war comments), fit on one page at the bottom of the talk page. If you do want to take on this Wikipedia policy issue, please post it to Talk:Sam. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
How can I have an image itself be an internal link? Feed back  ☎ 06:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean, like Image:Apple tree.jpg? Add a colon before the image name, like Image:Apple tree.jpg - BanyanTree 07:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for the image itself to be a link to an article? Feed  back  ☎ 14:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can make an imagemap. e.g., for Image:Apple tree.jpg, use:


 * 2272 is the width of the actual image, and 1704 is the height. This information is available on the image description page. See mw:Extension:ImageMap for more information. This approach is favored over click, which relies on a CSS hack that may not work in all browsers. Grace notes T § 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to use . Just replace that line by  . --Dapeteばか 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Though if you do something like that with apple tree there is a license problem. The license requires attribution, and attribution is normally given when you click on the image. If you redirect clicking on it to somewhere else, where is the attribution? Arthena(talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why this method is usually only used for public domain images or if attribution is not required for whatever reason. For everything else, if you take out the line saying, an 'i' symbol will appear in the corner of the image linking to the image page. Tra (Talk) 00:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

squatter now has legal rights to property
~DON~I was the previous owner of a property, the property was sold but there was a clause in the sales agreement which stated that the family living in the workers house may not be removed, this was done because they had been there for over ten years and we couldnt evict them in time for the sale to go through. The size of the actual property is +- half an acre,whilst the main property is six acres. Now the reason I am making this query is to find out how we go about making it legal according to the law, as this family would like to have electricity installed and can not do so unless they can prove ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.32.254 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not in the position to provide legal advice. Please visit a Lawyer, Civil law notary or your local educational facility that teaches law. - Mgm|(talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What happens now?
Goguryeo-Guk has been tagged as a hoax for... several months now? Evidently there's some truth to it, per the talk page, but... what should be done since that's stalled out? It seems to be stuck in this awful limbo: It's not trustworthy enough to untag and let go on its way, but it is not being deleted... Any informations? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is a hoax, it should be nominated for deletion. See WP:AfD.  The Transhumanist (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. AfD is appropriate at this point. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the point, I don't know if it is or is not a hoax, and everyone else seems to be ignoring it. Anyway, can one of you, since I can't? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Start an AFD noting that it is a possible hoax, that there are no references and that none of the users on the discussion page who edit in the topic can confirm that it actually existed. Make a note of the AFD on the relevant Korea WikiProject.  The deadline of an AFD is enough to prompt users who may have it as a low priority to find a reference, while deleting an unreferenced, possible hoax is certainly a good thing. - BanyanTree 02:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But will you (or someone)? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, done and done. Note that you can do it yourself, though.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeking copy-editors
I am a 16-year-old Singaporean and a near-native speaker of English. Since joining Wikipedia in February 2006, I have made over 2500 edits, which include writing a GA - I Not Stupid - and three DYKs - Money No Enough, The Best Bet and Megan Zheng.

In school, I usually score A1s in English - I topped my school in English last year and almost repeated that feat this year. Nevertheless, I know that my English still needs considerable polishing; my sentence structures are awkward and I struggle with the more subtle aspects of English grammar. Contributing to Wikipedia has helped me further improve my writing skills and command of English to a certain extent.

I am looking for a copy-editor who:
 * Is a native speaker of British English. It goes without saying that the copy-editor's command of English should be far better than mine, and since I contribute to Singapore-related articles, and Singapore was once a British colony, British English should be used in Singapore-related articles.
 * Has actively contributed to the English Wikipedia for at least three months and made at least 1000 edits. This criterion ensures that the copy-editor is reasonably familiar with Wikipedia's content policies.
 * Has an IRC (freenode), MSN Messenger or Google Talk account, logs in to it almost every day and is not afraid to disclose the account to me. If I want a copy-editor to look through articles I write, I could simply file a request with the League of Copyeditors, although they usually take a long time to respond to requests. Having copy-editing done in real-time through instant messaging has several advantages. There are times when the copy-editor may need me to clarify the intended meaning of a sentence or provide some background information or context. Moreover, the copy-editor could explain why a sentence is grammatically incorrect, instead of just correcting the error.
 * Is aged between 16 and 25 (inclusive) and friendly. Singaporeans are notorious for focusing on the result rather than the process, but I will do my best to avoid being a slave-driver. The copy-editor should be a friend, not just a copy-editor, and should be able to explain to me the more subtle aspects of English grammar in an easy-to-understand manner.

Anyone who meets the above criteria and is interested should post on my talk page, where we can make the necessary arrangements (such as exchanging IRC/MSN/GTalk handles).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to pay this paragon? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish I could. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Last stand
What's the reason behind, and how do we fix Last stand. The table appears after the references (in earlier revisions it was fine). Thank you. El_C 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed, somebody had removed the code (wiggly brackets) terminating the table. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright on Wikipedia... in layman's terms
I am trying to bring Peter Wellington up to GA standards, and to do that, I want to include an image of the subject. I am in contact with his electorate office, but they just told me "oh, there's one on the Queensland Parliament website you can use.

Obviously, the image of Wellington on that site is copyrighted, and the person I'm talking to, like most people outside of Wikiland, more than likely does not have an extensive knowledge of image copyrights, licences, and the like. Is there an official looking page somewhere that I can point her to that explains why we can't just pinch that portrait of him, why we can't use "permission given to use on Wikipedia", and the difference in "simple terms" between GFDL and public domain and the like? Lankiveil (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, even with the index, I couldn't find anything. What seems to be needed is another FAQ, about images, to be added here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Newspapers
Just enquiring here as there seems to be no guidance on WP:N as to what makes a newspaper notable apart from the general guidelines. I ask because I recently came across a short article about a local newspaper whose circulation is <27,000. Obviously it's notable in its locality, but in general? -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My personal feeling is that all daily newspapers are inherently notable (past and present). AFAIK, there is no official guidance on the topic. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Something wrong with template?
I just saw this article, using this template. There seems to be something wrong with it: the months are -all but August- called " I ", even when displayed on the above article. I'd like to correct the template and the article, but this wiki syntax is somewhat puzzling. Can somebody please help with this problem? 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. After figuring out how the template works and correcting the problem, I discovered that the problem was actually caused by an IP making test edits to the template. If any further problems result, do post them here. Cheers, Grace notes T § 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. :) 23:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrolling
What does "patrolling" mean in reference to WikiP? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally, Recent changes patrol and/or New page patrol. It may also be used as a synonym for "review closely", though some editors may not take kindly to being told they are being "patrolled".   - BanyanTree 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It might also refer to patrolled edits, not currently implemented on the English Wikipedia (it was tried in January 2005 and considered to be a failure, so it was turned off). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the ability to mark new pages as patrolled was recently enabled. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-publicity or public information?
I have been scanning the information on UK long-distance footpaths. They are neatly categorised into those in each of the induvidual UK nations. I would like to add a link to a description of a reoute that joins up a number of long-distance paths into a route of just over a thousand miles running from Dover to Cape Wrath (North-west corner of Scotland). The link would be to my own website - thousandplus.org which has been set up to attract sponsorship for my own attempt at this route and I would like to know whether there is any breach of policy or etiquette in adding a link of this type. While there is no personal gain involved it could be seen as touting for donations. Is there an alternative way of adding the description of the route to Wikpedia? Although this is not a formally recognised route I an sure it would be of interest to a fair number of more ambitious walkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.120.252 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the route itself is not notable, and thus not suitable for an Wikipedia article. Should it become famous, getting coverage in the press, etc., that might change; but for now, Wikipedia is definitely the wrong place to attempt to publicize this concept. That's just not what we do here. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. or Ms. Unsigned, for asking your question. I, for one, appreciate your posting it. The best way to get the info into WikiP is to have your footpath noted by outside sources — magazines or Web sites about walking, exploration, tourism, etc. You can do this simply by sending your info to as many non WikiP places as possible (maybe even writing and illustrating your own article). Get it published in the Times or the Scotsman and I am sure that a notice in WikiP will follow. The theory is that you can't write the WikiP article yourself, but once your footpath becomes notable I, for one, would not complain if you asked somebody else to write a piece about it, citing the outside sources. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone who knows baseball?
'''Review done. Thanks!''' Jackollie 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there someone who knows baseball better than I do who could take a look at the contributions of Dshibshm? He's made a ton of changes to player articles tonight. The first of his changes I found were things like removing a nickname or a player number, which I assumed was vandalism, but a lot of the changes are to positions played, etc. - things I'm not knowledgeable about. If the edits I've rv'd are actually good changes, I'll put them back if someone will let me know. Jackollie 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work. What WikiP page are you troubled by? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Special:Contributions/Dshibshm. Earlier in the evening this person made a number of changes to articles on baseball players. I see that Dshibshm is now making a lot of minor edits to TV show articles. Jackollie 06:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pitcairn Island rape trial . ..
May I have some assistance in trimming, cutting and rearranging the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004? The article was written piece by piece, almost day by day, during the trial and appeal, and it is not a unified, encyclopedic article. Kindly visit the page and detail on the Discussion page there what you think should be done and how you can help, if possible. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 08:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

assistance With KWKM-LP
I tried to transfer and edited that particular information into KWKM and I have not finshed editing that, what do I need to do? I have information from the defuctional American one affiliate from the outlying areas outside of Phoenix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks sonflower (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What? - Rjd0060 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Articles
Can someone tell me how to find a previous deletion debate for a recreated page? The Afd page is only ordered by date & I don't know even roughly when the debate occurred. Thanks. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the page? If it was deleted as result of an AfD discussion, the discussion page should be in the articles' deletion log.  Anyways, just type: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article title here
 * in the search bar, and it should bring it up. - Rjd0060 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just done this and it redirects to the new AfD. This may be a problem with Twinkle & I have notified its author. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the page? - Rjd0060 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it. But according to this, you moved the page from the original nom, to the second nomination. - Rjd0060 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Twinkle insisted on calling it a 2nd nom, perhaps. There's nothing behind the redirect anyhow, I've looked. All a bit arsy-versy and it appears it had been previously speedied. I've left a note on the Afd explaining this. Thanks. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you left a note on the TW page, and that should be fine. But I really don't think twinkle would move a page (which is what has happened).  Twinkle would just create the page with the title "2nd nomination".  - Rjd0060 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I moved the page because Twinkle told me the Afd already existed and it would have to be "2nd nomination". Can't actually remember the dynamics of it now, it's a long time ago, and everything now seems to be as it should be. Probably better left until User:AzaToth gets back to it. Certainly the Afd can be seen & its creator has been notified. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)