Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

[[:|WP:VPA
WP:VP/A]]

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Does this constitute a 3RR violation, and by whom?

An anonymous troll is continually inserting insulting messages on my talk page. Each insulting message differs considerably in content, but they all have the same intention and were made by the same user. I'm reverting each of the insulting messages as they come (although he left three insulting messages before I first spotted and reverted).

Once I revert his insulting messages for the fourth time, considering all the insulting messages differ in content, have I broken 3RR? And after the anonymous troll inserts his fourth insulting message after my third revert, has he broken 3RR?

P.S. I'm fed up with all the moronic anonymous vandals. They are one reason why I wanted to leave Wikipedia before. I don't know why I decided to stay and waste my time on them. Thankfully RuneScape is semi-protected now, and without all the anonymous vandals ruining the article, it's getting closer to Good Article standards every day.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - the IP address is clearly trolling and you have all the right to remove personal attacks from your talk page. I have blocked the user for 24 hours for trolling and general incivility, as well. Cowman109^Talk 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking him. I'll remember that I can remove personal attacks from my talk page at any time.

As a side note, what if an anon were to add a nonsense statement to an article, and I were to revert it? After my third revert, when he adds his fourth nonsense statement (assuming all the nonsense statements are different), is he violating 3RR? If I revert his fourth nonsense statement, am I violating 3RR? I think such an issue may crop up on RuneScape if the semi-protection is lifted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unless it is clear vandalism it is best to not revert more than 3 times. If in doubt, it's probably best to leave it to others and mention it on the talk page of the article. It is important to make a distinction between an edit war and simply vandalism. If it is an edit war, then Dispute resolution might be the course of action to take. :) Cowman109^Talk 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remember that I can remove personal attacks from my talk page at any time - be careful. Removing some templates when you're possibly committing 3RR violations, etc., should not be removed. I'm not saying that you would ever do such a thing, but don't point to this page as justification if somebody objects to the deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced Wikipedia Users needed.

I, Kamisamanou Burgess, am working on a new wiki called DinerWiki. DinerWiki seeks to be the ultimate guide in finding the best place to eat. Intentions are that it will first be sorted by cities(aka Crossville,TN), then cuisine(mexican)or main courses(chicken, soup, etc.). I am asking for team members to help me design DinerWiki as I am mearly (merely? nearly?) a newcomer to the MediaWiki platform.

Requirements
- Mid-level to expert knowledge of the MediaWiki platform.
- Atleast 4 hours a week of time devoted to improving and moderating DinerWiki appreciated.

More Information
- DinerWiki
- Contact Information

Kamisamanou 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probable notable-editor welcome procedure?

I've come across 3 notable editors editing their own articles lately, and went looking for an appropriate welcome template, but couldnt find anything.

All I could find linkwise, was Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you, and Template:Notable Wikipedian (which seems highly privacy-invasive to me (unless they place it themselves)), and I didnt want to just dump those links and a normal welcome template on their pages.

I understand the username issue, and the autobiographical editing issue, but would like someone else to concisely summarise them as part of a new welcome template.
I'd also request that someone set up a procedure/location, for us non-admins to delegate the task of "making official contact" to verify identity. (I'm thinking of Zanimum's comment at Stephencolbert, "The message was sent as a Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee member.")

The 3 editors in question are:

User:Jrosenbaum editing the Jonathan Rosenbaum article. (They were good npov/cleanup edits, and he's a professional writer, so (assumming it is he) it'd be really nice to have him welcomed but not overwhelmed.) (has already been given a basic welcome template)
User:Aa bronson editing the General Idea article.
4 edits to Pico Iyer by a non-static-ip Anon (198.81.1.*), claiming to be the subject. (he is another professional writer.) (I made an attempt at a welcome)

Thanks for any feedback. --Quiddity·(talk) 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would give them a nice friendly welcome, with the standard help links. Here are a variety of Welcome templates to choose from or get ideas for creating a custom one. I would also include links to Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and WP:NPOV, among the general help links. Hopefully their edits are inline with Wikipedia policy, and they will get the message. If their edits are problematic and they don't get the message, I would leave another note on their talk page. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do these messages sound? I'll send them out by 3 PM EST if there's no changes... -- Zanimum 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Bronson,

Someone claiming to be you has edited Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia project. Is it indeed you?

If it is you, welcome! We'd love to have you as a contributor.

If it isn't you, we'll block the account, so that they aren't impersonating you.

Thanks,

Nick Moreau

Administrator, Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Communications Committee member, Wikimedia Foundation

Hello,

A person claiming to be Jonathan Rosenbaum has edited Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia project. I was wondering if we could have a simple confirmation or denial that the account "Jrosenbaum" belongs to him.

If it is Mr. Rosenbaum, the community extends its welcome to him.

If it is simply an impersonator of him, we will block the account.

Thanks,

Nick Moreau

Administrator, Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Communications Committee member, Wikimedia Foundation

Those drafts sound fine.

Is there a place to request the Communications Committee to do this type of thing?
I know we're (obviously) not meant to give celebrities special treatment, but I was thinking that professional/notable writers could potentially be welcomed with a bit more effort; Whilst everyone is "equal", some are a little more "equal" (or potentially valuable) than others ;) (Iyer and Rosenbaum, being at the top of their respective writing fields (travel, film), would make wonderful additions as either editors, or even just fans of the site.)

Thanks. --Quiddity·(talk) 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus Seven just pointed me towards Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article. That's where instructions on how to request official-verification-of-usernames should go. --Quiddity·(talk) 09:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad good sources.

One would think that the BBC would be a good source however the BBC like many outlets has agreements to repeat information put out by other sources without acknowledgement. In the case of Cyrus Kar many news outlets including the BBC reported that he was a United States Navy SEAL. I found one internet posting [1] from a group that verifies the status of SEALS and received an email that says in part:

"We do not have the time to produce an article on every non-SEAL that ignorant media types appoint SEAL status. The fact is they don't know what they are talking about.

If anybody wants to know, they can ask us. Cyrus Kar was not a Navy SEAL and, based on what we have seen, he never claimed he was."

I really can't cite a personal email but what do we do when there a gazillion copies of a wire report with bad information?

--Gbleem 03:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always a toughy. The BBC is a generally reliable source, but no source is perfect. Have you tried contacting them and suggesting that they make a correction? Then we'd be able to link to the correction. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Voting

Pardon me, but are Admin allowed to block anyone who disagrees with your reason for voting? --Masssiveego 18:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I

Umm no, depending on the reason. Abusive wording, sockpuppetry etc. still apply but they shouldn't block just because of a cast vote. Why? Has an admin done this? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massiveego opposes nearly every (or perhaps) every RFA, leading some editors/admins to suggest that he is doing this to be disruptive. In return, Massiveego has brought up on a number of different locations the questions, does my vote count?, which seems like it is starting to tick off the bureaucrats [2]. So he's brought it to yet another forum, for what purpose I don't know.

Here's my take. In theory, RFA is not a vote, it is a discussion to determine community consensus about an editor. In reality, supporting a candidate is a vote, but opposition requires consensus. If you vote to endorse a candidate with just your ~~~~ sig, no one cares, but if you oppose a candidate, you are expected to explain your reasons and to engage in dialog with the candidate's supporters. This has some interesting results, for example, a highly supported RFA can swing over to failure based on one well-explained opposer who changes peoples' minds or brings in new people. But it also means that supporters are rarely if ever asked to defend their opinions against the candidate's opponents while opponents are expected to defend themselves against the candidates supporters. Massiveego opposes nearly every candidate but does not engage in the expected dialog. Without passing judgement on the current state of RFA, Massiveego is clearly determined to march to his own drummer. As a result, he annoys people and they are dismissive of him. If Massiveego wants to feel like a full participant he needs to participate; but the only disruption comes from people who get annoyed at him and try to engage rather than just politely ignoring him. And this should really be held at WT:RFA. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I discovered this too, via his talk page, and have replied my opinion there. I will say though that I agree with what you have said above Thatcher. Dialog is everything on consensus - it is not a vote --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick, but the top of WP:RFA casts it in a fairly vote-like light... "bureaucrats may extend the deadline or call for a revote", "Who may vote", "Who may note vote", ... That said, it's somewhat common tradition in RFA to at least explain your oppose votes for a variety of reasons (eg. to hilight candidate's problems that other users may want to consider, ...). I suppose that if one's voting criteria are so far out of the mainstream criteria, then one's reasons for opposing aren't likely to sway other voters, so maybe it might be pointless for Masssiveego to explain the votes, I don't know. We've had other voters who almost always voted oppose [3], and while it seems to generate ill will among many wikipedians, I guess it's not explicitely prohibited. --Interiot 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pardon me, but are Admin allowed to block anyone who disagrees with your reason for voting?" I don't know, do you still beat your wife? If you want to address a particular situation, cite it directly, don't ask leading questions intended to promote your point of view. Deco 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was quite serious. Just read my talkpage. I've oppose quite a few candiates because I felt they were not qualified. However I'm getting notices that I'm a disruption, and my "reasons" for oppose were required. Either way I would like some clarification when does WP:point, apply to the voting. Either the Admin are correct telling me that my voting pattern is wrong, and should quit voting immediately. Or do I continue to vote anyhow? I'm not too sure how the standard applies to RFA voting. It seems Mongo has his own standards, and I would like to know do I call what's going on in RFA uncalled for, or reasonable? Can an Admin block me for not providing a reason for my vote? I could have sworne that was the policy before that no reason had to be given, that anybody can vote any standard they feel was necessary. --Masssiveego 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you nearly always vote oppose without providing the explanation or engaging in a dialog as expected by the regulars at RFA, you should expect continued resistance. However I don't think it's disruptive in the sense of justifying a block and I doubt there would be much community support for a block if it were reviewed at WP:ANI. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. RFA is a discussion, not a vote, so it's in Masssiveego's interest to provide more information. On the other hand, an ineffective vote is not a threat to anybody and should be ignored, not retaliated against. Deco 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Does anyone know how to remove this bit of Vandalism

At the bottom of the Barnsley FC page there is a comment about Derby. I cant seem to find the source of the text in order to remove it! Please help Thanks in advance

It was being included via double inclusion from Template:Football_League_Championship_teamlist. I reverted it. This may say something about the usability of templates. Deco 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I just realised this might not be the place to mention vandalism! Im new! --Screen42 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)User:screen42[reply]

Don't worry, this wasn't a bad place to post. Welcome, and happy editing. Deco 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Screen42 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Promotion on WikiP

As an editor, I can't find any help in dealing with articles that are clearly self-promotional for private businesses. The one I have in mind involves a private school in a Middle Eastern country which seems to be trolling for customers. Is there a way to mark it for possible deletion? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the instructions at articles for deletion. There is a template for tagging the article and listing it on a discussion page. Explain your reason as you did here. After 5 days of discussion the fate of the article will be determiend by community consensus. You can also try proposed deletion which is a simpler process, but can be derailed by one objection, so its not useful if the authors are keeping an eye on their articles. Still, my view is there's no real rush unless its an attack article or hoax, so try proposed deletion and if that doesn't work, try articles for deletion. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted) You could tag it with {{advert}} or clean it up, removing the avdertising fluff. My guess is that this is a better solution than deleting the article, even if it reduces it to a stub. A poorly written article about a notable topic should usually be cleaned up. If you don't think the school is notable you can try to get the article deleted. To nominate for deletion, you may first want to use {{prod}}, which is a [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion}}. If the template is removed, or if you think the deletion is controversial, follow the instructions at the bottom of the WP:AFD page.

There are several policies for deciding notability: see a list at WP:N. Relevant to this case, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. WP:SPAM has some general information, but you may need something more specific. The notability of schools has been widely debated on Wikipedia. Most deletion discussions for schools these days seem to end in keep, maybe with cleanup. Keep up the good work! --TeaDrinker 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of a newspaper front page

At Talk:Ceasefire_attempts_during_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Independant_Cover_Picture, there is a discussion ongoing discussing whether or not the image on the article displaying the front page of a newspaper should be included in the article or not. It does not appear to violate the terms of its fair use, and it does seem relevant to the issue at hand, but several users are saying that the newspaper is biased and should not be included. There seems to be little room for compromise in this matter, so if anyone else could throw in their 2 cents about whether or not the image should be included, it'd help a lot ;). Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of term in the United States before the Twentieth Amendment

It was noon, March 4, Washington time; in discussing this matter, we have located the following sources.

From the Senate Report on Presidential terms: From 1789 through 1937, presidential and vice presidential terms ended on March 4 of every year following a presidential election, a date set by the Second Congress.
From Hind's House Precedents §6694-8. §6725 ftnote: On the 3d of March, 1851, Mr. Stephens offered a resolution to test this question, and on the ruling of Speaker Cobb it was decided that the Congress expired at noon on the 4th of March; which ruling has been in effect ever since. (6697)
- One of the arguments used here is that the Senate convenes at noon March 4, for six years, and that the House should do the same thing.

Some Wikipedians have been insisting on midnight, March 3, which is wrong; anybody who feels like fixing a date will be welcome. Septentrionalis 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much Drama in the LBZ...

Seek definition for the term " LBZ "? 24.95.67.183 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mistranscription of LBC, for Long Beach, California, which has ended up in many online lyric databases for Gin and Juice. In the future, please use the Wikipedia:Reference desk for questions of this nature. Cheers, BT 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any inclusion policy on commercial items?

Is there any policy on the inclusion or otherwise of series of articles relating to commercial items produced by a single manufacturer? I've been unable to uncover a consistent precedent on AfD. The example that worries me is Bratz dolls, which is currently in the process of seeding a large number of articles on each individual doll (see, for example, Ciara (Bratz character)). Espresso Addict 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than WP:CORP's fairly conservative section on products, I don't know of anything helpful. The relevant deletion precedent indicates only that future products are rarely notable.--Kchase T 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, Kchase. It looks like a grey area that might be worth testing on AfD. Espresso Addict 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definately take that to afd - and when you do, can you post the link on my talk page. I will be very interested in finding out how that goes. Viridae ^Talk 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this discussion, I've now brought one example to AfD as a test case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciara (Bratz character) Espresso Addict 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Collingsworth

While looking at recent changes, I came across this edit diff. It appears to be almost a total re-write of the article, with the aim of focusing the article less on Mr. Collingsworth's football career and more on his tv career, especially his return to NBC. The IP address that made the edit is registered to NBC, and the new version reads very much like a press release promoting NBC's sports programming.

I'm not quite sure if I should leave it alone, revert it, clean it up (as the person didn't use wiki formatting in the rewrite), or do a careful reading of the before and after and create a third version of it. I don't follow football and have never heard of Mr. Collingsworth before, so if there are errors in either version I might not be able to spot them.

Just thought I'd put it out here and see if I could get some other eyes on this. ONUnicorn 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with a reversion. Nationalparks 18:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Converting hiddenStructure in templates to the #if format

I was looking at the source of {{Infobox ski area}} and I noticed that it still uses the deprecated hiddenStructure hack. (I'm not exactly sure how it works, or how it was supposed to work, but I just know it's deprecated.) Is there someone out there who can convert the template? Or, is there a quick and easy guide to doing this conversion myself? I tried to do some work to convert it, but I couldn't quite get the formatting correct. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I figured out how to do this (finally). I think I wasn't properly using the {{!}} template to replace the pipe (|) character. In case anyone else is wondering how to do this, see this series of diffs. It's not the easiest process. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request article?

How do i request an article? I can supply some information but i donno how to make pages and properly put down source. For example I can supply this.

Ribbons of Orders, Decoration and Medals Guido Rosignoli Published 1977 by Arco Publishing Company, Inc. 219 park Avenue South, new York, Ny. 10003 Copywright Blandford Press 1976

Here is the info: Medal Wojska za Wojne 1939-45 pg. 140 also plate 44. Plate is a page wth pictures.

"Army Medal was created in 1945 for as a reward for six months of operational service during WWII, or twelve months in a non operational role." Quotations are for the reason it is direct quote from the source listed above.

Please see Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thanks, BT 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham Young University--Image

Will somebody please find a way to remove the extremely disturbing image from the page for Brigham Young University. I realize that Wikipedia is a completely free information database, but that image has absolutely no business being there. If anybody can be of help and assistance here, I would greatly appreciate it.

-Concerned and Disturbed

Howdy, and thanks for bringing this up. I don't see anything immediately wrong with any of the images on the Brigham Young University article, nor do I see any in the recent past. I count seven images total: five of campus, one logo and one of the stadium. Can you be more specific as to what is wrong and where you saw it? Nothing in the history suggests these images have changed recently. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the templates used by the page ({{Infobox University}}) had been vandalised. It was reverted after four minutes.-gadfium 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on articles: Emran Mian and Kamran Nazeer

Two wikipedia users seem to be using these articles as a platform for pursuing a private grudge against the author. I've tried to edit out the false material, but the user keeps re-posting. I know the author personally and can state with certainty that the claims are untrue - is there any way to prevent this material from continually reappearing?

PLEASE WATCH THE DEMOCRACY ARTICLE

this article is in need of attention from experts in politicla science as well as experienced wikipedians for example: i have put up a header called "modern day context" and i don't think its very wiki(used an adjetive) i'd appreciate edits and contributions. thank you.Esmehwk 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I list a cut and paste move?

Earlier today an article was cut and pasted from Woughton on the Green to Woughton over the redirect that was initially there pointing back to the original article. Last time I saw one of these I listed it on Wikipedia:Requested moves and was told that was the wrong place to list it. So where do I list this sort of thing? -- Roleplayer 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves (it took me a while to find a few days ago (and i had to use google to find it just now)) ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 01:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Roleplayer 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Greek speaker in the house?

Please report to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gate_13 to help clear some stuff up. Thanks! - Richfife 04:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aiman abmajid

Hi! While patrolling newly created pages, I came across these pages: Masjid Jamek Larkin and Masjid Ungku Tun Aminah created by User:Aiman abmajid who, according to his user page "has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee." If that's so, how can he be creating pages? (The related question is whether the articles created meet notability standards and should remain). Thanks for the assistance. --CPAScott 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His block log says he was blocked indefinitely on 18 August, but it was lifted on 21 August. Nyttend 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving talk pages

How do I move a talk page?

Occasionally, when I have some spare moments, I'll get on Wikipedia and hit "random article", fixing the occasional error. Today, I passed an article on Patrick Sweeney, which was only called "Patrick Sweeney" then. Curious, I searched Wikipedia and found that there were other articles about people with that name, so I moved the hockey player article from "Patrick Sweeney" to the new location, after which I put a disambiguation page up at Patrick Sweeney. I've just discovered, however, that the talk page for the disambiguation page redirects to the talk page for the hockey player. I'm assuming there's some way to get a talk page for the disambiguation page, but I'm not familiar with it. I expect there's also the answer to my question listed in some help file or another :-) but I don't have the time right now to look.

Thanks for your help! Nyttend 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like, I could do it for you. It's a little difficult to put into words and explain. :) Wikiwoohoo 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance with table footnotes

"King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France...pay your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France."^[1]

Joan of Arc, Letter to the English, March - April 1429

Wikimarkup wizards, please help solve a quick dilemma. I am attempting to create a footnote within a table so the footnote appears at the bottom of an article page.

Following the example at Pericles, I have translated short excerpts from Joan of Arc's letters. The reference for the example here should appear as:

Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Durova.

If wikimarkup does not support this, then would it be feasible to link to a separate mainspace page that I could create for the purpose of citing the text boxes? Three more quotes (table formatted, but without citation) are posted on the article talk page. Help would be much appreciated. Durova 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Playmate's Discussion Page--Now What?

Hi,

I've recounted an incident in the life of Gloria Root (Playboy Playmate, December 1969) on the discussion page for her.

I'm new at this. What happens now? Do "senior" Wik-ittes review it and decide whether it has merit?

If I get to put it up, can somebody advise me on how to create those discreet little citation numbers? (My info just has the sources written out in parens.)

Anyhow, have fun; it's a revelation, that's for sure. It's called "Drug Smuggling Playmate."

Awaiting word....

Hezekiah-1812 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely worth adding as a subsection of the page, however, it has 2 problems that would prevent its addition as is:

1. Length. As written, it's too long and would eclipse the rest of the article, which would constitute undue weight and make the article tone excessively negative.

2. It reads like a copyvio or newspaper article. Where did you get it from? If that's a direct quote from the source, you'll need to rewrite it to avoid breaking copyright law. If not, then, while you're a good writer, you'll need to put it in a more encyclopedic tone.

--tjstrf 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

I'm trying to find the most direct way to change the stub status of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The maze (talk • contribs) .

If you don't think the article is really a stub (that is, it is longer than about four paragraphs), go ahead and remove the {{stub}} tag (the actual tag will look something like {{something-descriptive-stub}}). If the article really is a stub, write a brilliant article then remove the tag. --TeaDrinker 23:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig/Font

How do I change the font in my sig? Mac Lover ^Talk _C 00:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the top right of your screen, click on the My Preferences link, click the "Raw signature" button, and enter [[User:Mac Lover|Mac Lover]], which would appear as Mac Lover. Of course, color and font can be changed to your pleasure. --TeaDrinker 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should also add, see WP:SIG for additional rules and regs... --TeaDrinker 00:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complex problem with editorial dispute

As I've mentioned on my talk page I have a real problem with another editor: a single-minded guy trying to push (in my opinion) a particular POV in the contentious Anarchism article and other related ones. His favourite tactic, on top of weasel-wording, is to misrepresent sources, give sources supporting his view undue weight and trying to scrap sources opposing his view (which is not a consensus, but the majority trend) from the article unless forced to. He has been, in my view, strikingly dishonest and I would very much like for him to disappear. I've threatened to move to have him banned - he has worked in bad faith, been vengeful, disregarded standing standards within articles as well as current attempts at reconciliation. His interpretation of sources has repeatedly been questioned, but he insists on having them represented (even violating WP:3RR) against the wishes of the other editors.

But: this isn't the simplest case (the 3RR violation I reported hasn't been judged, 3 days on). Perhaps I'm not dealling with this the right way. I would like some advice on the matter - anybody willing to take a look through this quagmire? Thank you.

Sincerely yours, --Marinus 07:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to change sig

I'm trying to change my signature from the standard one (which just links to your userpage) to one that also links to my talk page and contributions. I know what I want it to look like; I want it to look like this: ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)

But when I go to preferences and put that in, it doesn't look like that at all. Instead it looks like this: ~ [[User:ONUnicorn|ONUnicorn ([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])]]

What am I doing wrong? Doesn't the wiki code for links work the same in signatures as in other places?

^ Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Durova.

[1] Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Durova.

[1]