Linking to copyrighted material
Per Wikipedia:ELNEVER#Restrictions_on_linking you can link to a copyrighted work on another website if it is likely that the website has a licence to use the work. It is very unlikely that the University of California is hosting copyright violations on its website, so I don't think you need remove the Broken mirrors link from articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a fun one. As a state institution the University of California cannot be successfully sued for copyright violations, even when reproducing unlicensed material; see, for example, a 2000 statement before Congress by The Register of Copyrights. The copy in question is hosted by a UC unit headed by one of the coauthors, so it's safe to assume that the coauthor approves of this copy. However, the copy clearly states "Copyright 2006 Scientific American, Inc." (which means the coauthor's permission is legally irrelevant) and later a stern notice "Materials received from the Scientific American Archive Online may only be printed for your personal, non-commercial use following 'fair use' guidelines. Without prior written permission from Scientific American, Inc., materials may not otherwise be reproduced ...". My best guess is that the copy is unlicensed, but the coauthor didn't notice that or doesn't care, and Scientific American can't legally do anything about it. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true, I'd assume that a coauthor has the right to reprint a pdf version of an article on a personal website and this has "prior written permission", this is pretty common with journals at least. Anyway, its up to you of course, but I don't think you HAVE to remove the link. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, although in such cases I typically don't see copies plastered with restrictive copyright notices. Instead, I typically see the author's manuscript without a notice, or perhaps a copy of the article from the journal with a notice saying "reproduced with permission". It is a close call, and perhaps you're right, so I undid the change to Asperger syndrome. For Autism this article isn't as important, since we have better and more recent sources (it's just that they don't mention Asperger's). Eubulides (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true, I'd assume that a coauthor has the right to reprint a pdf version of an article on a personal website and this has "prior written permission", this is pretty common with journals at least. Anyway, its up to you of course, but I don't think you HAVE to remove the link. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Please help me
Please correctly do the alt text for February 2009 tornado outbreak. Showtime2009 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've already helped quite a bit with the alt text, by commenting at some length at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/February 2009 tornado outbreak/archive2, and later by writing the alt text for one image, as an example; this alt text was later installed by Franamax. I'm afraid that I don't have time to write alt text for all the featured article nominees out there: can you please try to write alt text for the remaining images in that article that have problems, with my comments and example in mind, or find another volunteer who can take it on? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eub is right, they've already given lots of clues and helped me out to boot. Showtime, I'm still willing to give you somewhat amateur help at your talk page, jusy say so. But really, no-one is too likely to just go and do the job for you. Franamax (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please review the alt text for Planetary nebula
For the featured article review of Planetary nebula I have added alt text as you requested. Please review it and if possible help improve what I wrote. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have restored my comments to the original position
It appears your move confused Tony1 into supposing I was going to specify a pixel size. My post was more comment than yea or nay; it was bound to generated threaded responses and has done so. To place that sort of thing within the poll rather than within the commentary tends to short circuit the poll. I wished to raise a new issue and provoke new angles of discussion. Durova321 17:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Running Man Barnstar | ||
For invaluable help in improving the Jackie Robinson article in its (finally successful) fourth FAC review. BillTunell (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC) |
Needs an alt text parameter. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eubulides, this edit had some unintended effects, I think. On the FAC page, a list of all the FACs and FARs was inserted on the template before the nominating procedure instructions. Might want to re-evaluate in a sandbox perhaps? Nathan T 22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
alt
I now have an image in Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident which is in an infobox. Do I need to put alt text in it? If so, how do I do it? Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please use the
|alt=
parameter I just added to {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Eubulides (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tx. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Political history of Mysore and Coorg FAC
All the alt-text issues are now resolved, I hope. I hadn't realized that alt-text exists for the sight-impaired. I welcome comments from you at the FAC review. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Contributor Barnstar Thanks for your help in getting Interstate 70 in Colorado to Featured Article status. Dave (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC) |
Alt text
Hi Eubulides, I am confused as to how to start putting the alt text into the images in the gallery at Disasters of War. Is there a template that enables or a technique? Thanks for your help...Modernist (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Alt text issue (2)
The alt text for an image is not displaying with the checker at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in Missouri/archive1. Can you check it out? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem now. Which image is it? Sometimes the Altviewer runs off an old cache; that might explain why you saw a problem and I don't see one now. By the way, it's no big deal but I'd change "A state map highlighting Worth County in the northwestern part of the state" to the briefer "Worth County is in the northwestern part of the state". Eubulides (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I still can't see the alt text for the first image. Also, is the math text in List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches accessible? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the Missouri map. As per WP:ALT#Math the math formula is accessible only to readers who speak TeX, which seems a bit much for such a simple formula. Eubulides (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see. Do you know how to fix it? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would fix it by saying that simple formula in English; there's no need for any math at all. For example, "When computing the win-loss percentage, a tie counts as half a win and half a loss." That would be easier to for sighted readers, too. Eubulides (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- One more thing: Is Template:MLB awards fine with link=, or should it have normal alt text? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto Template:Philly Baseball Wall of Fame. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Templates like that, where the image has no function and conveys no useful information, should mark the images with "
|link=
|alt=
". It used to be just "|link=
", but due to changes in the Mediawiki "|alt=
" is now needed as well; see WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. I patched one of the templates to do that. Eubulides (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Templates like that, where the image has no function and conveys no useful information, should mark the images with "
- I would fix it by saying that simple formula in English; there's no need for any math at all. For example, "When computing the win-loss percentage, a tie counts as half a win and half a loss." That would be easier to for sighted readers, too. Eubulides (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see. Do you know how to fix it? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the Missouri map. As per WP:ALT#Math the math formula is accessible only to readers who speak TeX, which seems a bit much for such a simple formula. Eubulides (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I still can't see the alt text for the first image. Also, is the math text in List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches accessible? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I hate to bug you yet again, but can you offer suggestions on how to improve the alt text of the graph at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag/archive3? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Water fluoridation
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Water fluoridation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page.
No one person owns a wikipedia page. Thanks! Gregwebs (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
ketogenic diet
Eubulides,
I've put ketogenic diet up for peer review in order to push it towards FAC. It would be wonderful if you could find time to review this. In particular, I'm hoping for your usual fussiness wrt quality of sources and the text<->source agreement. Cheers, Colin°Talk 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for working on that article: at first glance it looks to be in quite good shape. I'll try to pry free some time to do it justice. (Hmm, "as cited by"? ok, ok, so perhaps I am a bit fussy...). Eubulides (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wrt "as cited by", I'm trying to handle secondary citations. I can't find what the Vancouver style is for that. Should it just be "cited by" or "cited in"? I haven't read the ancient Greek texts nor have I read the French article, but I have read the source that cites them. Colin°Talk 08:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ancient Greek texts are generally available online nowadays, and I can read a little Greek, so maybe I can help out. Often translations are also available, which'd be even better. (OK, so I am fussy after all.) How's your French? Eubulides (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, you think you can do better than Owsei Temkin? :-) Isn't this a primary/secondary thing? It is one thing for an article on an ancient Greek to cite Greek texts, but surely The Falling Sickness is scholarly enough a source for a statement on what the Greeks said about epilepsy and food. Plus, once we start citing the Greek, we'd have to say which manuscript edition (which Temkin does in his bibliography). I've got at least two papers that cite Temkin rather than the ancient texts.
- I think we probably say enough about Guelpa and Marie's study, and citing Bailey(2005) lets us make claims (first modern).
- What improvements do you think we could make here? I think our readers would be better served reading Temkin's excellent book than trying to make sense of the original texts. But if we cite both, it is up to them.
- Ancient Greek texts are generally available online nowadays, and I can read a little Greek, so maybe I can help out. Often translations are also available, which'd be even better. (OK, so I am fussy after all.) How's your French? Eubulides (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wrt "as cited by", I'm trying to handle secondary citations. I can't find what the Vancouver style is for that. Should it just be "cited by" or "cited in"? I haven't read the ancient Greek texts nor have I read the French article, but I have read the source that cites them. Colin°Talk 08:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an example of where amateur-historians citing historical texts get into trouble. Some of the papers on the KD claim epilepsy is treated in the Bible through "prayer and fasting" (Mark 9:29, Matthew 17:21). There are three problems with that. Firstly Jesus is explaining why the disciples failed to cast out the demon: they weren't devoted enough in their prayer. He isn't advising the boy with the demon to pray and fast. Secondly, most modern translations omit the "and fasting" aspect altogether as it only appears in some manuscripts. Thirdly, I'm not aware of any tradition in Christianity that suggests people with epilepsy should fast. Temkin doesn't mention such a practice, though he does describe some priests in the Middle Ages suggesting those Bible verses could cure if heard during a sermon or if written down and carried as a amulet. I suspect if the authors of those KD papers had consulted a scholarly work, they might not have come to that conclusion. It is a meme now, with one paper copying the intro from another, but I don't intend to repeat it. If someone challenges that then I'll ask them to produce some Bible scholarship supporting it. Colin°Talk 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree pretty much with all of the above points (including my abilities versus Temkin's!) except that, if the article relies on Temkin, it should cite Temkin, and not cite the sources that Temkin cites. Philitas of Cos cites an ancient Greek or Roman source only when I checked the quote or claim directly against the source or its translation (and the corresponding citations list the manuscript edition and/or translation version); when it is relying on what some modern commentator says about an ancient source (e.g., "Longus' 2nd century AD novel Daphnis and Chloe contains a character likely named after him.", citing Hunter 1996) it cites the modern commentator and not the ancient source. Eubulides (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be better if the citation was reversed? "Temkin (1971), p57. Citing Galen, De venae sect. adv. Erasistrateos Romae degentes; c. 8; vol. 11." I'd be loath to remove the historical cite altogether as readers would have to buy the book in order to find the relevant text. Colin°Talk 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree pretty much with all of the above points (including my abilities versus Temkin's!) except that, if the article relies on Temkin, it should cite Temkin, and not cite the sources that Temkin cites. Philitas of Cos cites an ancient Greek or Roman source only when I checked the quote or claim directly against the source or its translation (and the corresponding citations list the manuscript edition and/or translation version); when it is relying on what some modern commentator says about an ancient source (e.g., "Longus' 2nd century AD novel Daphnis and Chloe contains a character likely named after him.", citing Hunter 1996) it cites the modern commentator and not the ancient source. Eubulides (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an example of where amateur-historians citing historical texts get into trouble. Some of the papers on the KD claim epilepsy is treated in the Bible through "prayer and fasting" (Mark 9:29, Matthew 17:21). There are three problems with that. Firstly Jesus is explaining why the disciples failed to cast out the demon: they weren't devoted enough in their prayer. He isn't advising the boy with the demon to pray and fast. Secondly, most modern translations omit the "and fasting" aspect altogether as it only appears in some manuscripts. Thirdly, I'm not aware of any tradition in Christianity that suggests people with epilepsy should fast. Temkin doesn't mention such a practice, though he does describe some priests in the Middle Ages suggesting those Bible verses could cure if heard during a sermon or if written down and carried as a amulet. I suspect if the authors of those KD papers had consulted a scholarly work, they might not have come to that conclusion. It is a meme now, with one paper copying the intro from another, but I don't intend to repeat it. If someone challenges that then I'll ask them to produce some Bible scholarship supporting it. Colin°Talk 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW: I've asked Fvasconcellos about improving the chemical structure diagrams + alt text for them. He's moving house so that might not happen immediately. Would you be kind enough to review my (probably lame) efforts with the other pictures. Are you sick of alt text yet? You need a "league of alt-text experts" to spread the load. And, no, I'm not volunteering! Colin°Talk 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides, I think I've addressed your concerns at peer review (though I may still find/add some more on the "dietitian's POV"). Could you have a look? Do you think you could find some time to offer some more opinions on the article? Thanks very much. Colin°Talk 20:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Flagicon alt text
Hi Eubulides, per your request at Template talk:Flagicon, the alt text now matches the link name. But I'd also like your opinion for templates such as {{fb-big}}, used on pages such as FIFA World Cup#Results. Would you say they are just as decorative as the standard flag icons, despite the larger size, and ought to be rendered the same way? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- As far as WP:ACCESSIBILITY goes, I don't see much difference between {{fb-big}} and {{flag}}: both have a flag and a country name, with the flag being purely decorative, and in both cases the flag should be marked with "
|link=
|alt=
". Eubulides (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Connected templates
See Template_talk:Citation/core#Specific_changes for my reply. The idea is that {{Citation}} and {{Citation/core}} are connected, but {{Citation}} is doing something on its own. So I had made two editprotected requests. Just that there are no admins around who are knowledgable enough and are willing to make edits. I have a few more pending. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Alt in the galleries
Thanks for your help in setting up the gallery for alt text at Disasters of War. I completed adding the text, hopefully correctly, although I noticed they haven't registered in the alt text tool. Thanks again...Modernist (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Asperger_syndrome#Is_characterized_by_2. I'm waiting for your reply.
You can delete this message when you see it. MichaelExe (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Kanhopatra : Alt text
I wanted someone to check alt text for the article, User:Abecedare made some changes and directed me here. Would you please take a look. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed typos that prevented the alt text from working at all. It looks good now; thanks to all who wrote it. Eubulides (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Medical featured articles
Do you think that for your next medical FA, you could pick a less controversial subject? :-) Colin°Talk 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking of upping the ante. The most logical article for me to nominate would be Chiropractic: it's already of FA quality, and the only thing holding me back, actually, is that it'd be more hassle even than Water fluoridation. Probably by a factor of three. Once that's done, maybe Homeopathy would be next? Eubulides (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, you are entitled to choose what you want. And if you enjoy the fight... It's just so much effort when major-topic-articles like epilepsy lie neglected by both vandals, POV-pushers, and editors. But I do appreciate the work you do to ensure these controversial subjects are handled well. Colin°Talk 21:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eubulides, that was a cruel joke! You're such a serious chap and it seemed so plausible. I can't deny that cancer is a top-importance topic, though naturally I have preferences towards wanting to see epilepsy improved (good general sources are easy to find, not quite such a big subject as cancer, less controversial still). I don't have cancer watchlisted and assumed it was frequently edited but it doesn't seem to be being actively worked on. It has been semi-protected for a long time. The scope of these big-topic articles is scary, which is why I down-sized to work on KD. Colin°Talk 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Water fluoridation conspiracy
Eubulides, do you have a source (or even a decent web page) that specifically counters stuff like this and this. My guess for the second one is that sodium fluoride is being confused with Sodium fluoroacetate. Where does the first idea come from and what aspects of it are mistaken? I tried searching on Google and Google Scholar and gave up after the first 10 pages of ConspiraciesAreUs websites. Colin°Talk 16:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The most reliable sources I know of in the general area are Armfield 2007 (PMID 18067684) and Freeze & Lehr 2009 (ISBN 0470448334). Alas, I don't have easy access to the latter. The stories about fluoridation being a Nazi and/or Communist mind-control plot go back to the 1950s and were an invention then. Many decades ago sodium fluorosilicate was used to poison rats, but nowadays other, more-effective rodenticides are used, generally warfarin and related compounds; the only fluoride compounds I know that are still used for that are sodium fluoroacetate and fluoroacetamide. Eubulides (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
United States doesn't have alt text!
dude, it doesn't have alt text yet, i'll try and get to it unless you get there before me, Tom B (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Citation bot
How are we supposed to determine who triggers the bot, for example here? Was that you, reinstating that parameter, or did someone else initiate it after you removed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there's no way to tell. I usually guess by seeing who edits right away afterwards, cleaning up the mess. Unfortunately many editors fire off the bot and forget it (partly, I expect, because it takes sooo long to run). In this case possibly it was due to the citation bot maintainer, trying to figure out the bug? By the way, I have discovered that someone added a huge bloat to the output generated by the citation templates, bloat that is not at all visible on the screen, and which increases the size of the data delivered to the browser by about 25%, making Wikipedia slower for everyone, for the benefit of a very small number of readers who use non-browser software to slurp in citations so that they can write their papers. I'd like to do away with this when I have the time. Citations are such a pain! Eubulides (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to pester you
You're probably exhausted of hearing this, but I added alt text to the article in question. ceranthor 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that I've finished. Sorry for the delay, been a bit busy. ceranthor 01:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Alt text request
I'm coming back to Wikipedia after a long break; there seems to be a new push for alternative text on images at FAC, and you seem to be a point person for this. After reading about the text, I've added it one of my better-kept FAs. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at your leisure and let me know if I'm doing it correctly, or if you have any suggestions for improvement. The article in question is stable and is already featured, so there's no need for immediacy if you're occupied with other matters at FAC or elsewhere. Thanks, Pagrashtak 01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thx
Thanks for fixing the change to WP:IUP. Tony (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair use image for Makinti Napanangka
Thank you for yor contributions re images at the above article. Assuming for the moment that inclusion of a copyright image would qualify under fair use, I have no skills in capturing or processing such an image. The jpgs on gallery sites appear to me encrypted or somehow protected from copying (for obvious reasons). Have you any advice, or can you point me to a web page that might assist me? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can you look at this proposal and tell me if you think it will pass muster? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion to continue at Talk:Makinti Napanangka (moved from Elcobbola's talk page). Ta, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi - I'm still hoping you will look at this proposal and give a view at my talk page or at Talk:Makinti Napanangka. This image issue appears to be the sticking point at FAC, so I am hoping to resolve it as soon as possble. I am reluctant to upload the actual picture that i have until I have an opinion from an experienced editor regarding the fair use rationale. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Reflist
You can't go around reverting minor edits because you don't like them. Especially when there is a discussion going on. Debresser (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahem
Eubulides, it's time for you to be an admin (note that I didn't ask, I demanded :) Why? So you can add alt text to the TFA blurbs, which are protected pages. <tap, tap, tap> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, what's a TFA blurb? (I must confess being inspired by example—your example—in not being an admin.) Eubulides (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- My example notwithstanding, there is a shortage of admins, making my decision appear a bit selfish :) Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2009 is an archive of the daily TFA blurbs; by clicking on an individual date, you go to the individual page. (Colin, you're not getting off scott free here; I know you're reading, and there aren't enough admins to keep up with medical articles, and we can't keep leaving everything to Graham, MastCell and TimVickers.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eubulides, also see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Blurbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- PS, I think the blurb pages are unprotected after they've run, but protected before, so only admins can edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to nominate you if you wish. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eubulides, also see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Blurbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- My example notwithstanding, there is a shortage of admins, making my decision appear a bit selfish :) Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2009 is an archive of the daily TFA blurbs; by clicking on an individual date, you go to the individual page. (Colin, you're not getting off scott free here; I know you're reading, and there aren't enough admins to keep up with medical articles, and we can't keep leaving everything to Graham, MastCell and TimVickers.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There was a young man called Eubulides
- Who wrote the alt-text that no one sees.
- To be an admin he sought,
- Cause he felt that he ought
- To fix the protected Main Pages.
Follow up on the alt-text issue in protected blurbs at User talk:Juliancolton#Historical figures archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Request yet again
How does one treat satellite photos in alt text—see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season/archive2 (if you could leave advice there, that would be great). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I never cease to amaze
I can't even find the blippin' "Move" button at People speculated to have been autistic; there was consensus on the AFD for a new title, and we have to fix the template links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- WTH. I don't know what's going on there; it must be an issue with my browser (I know, I know). I have no Move button, and although the AFD template has been removed from the article, it still shows there for me, even after a refresh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not your browser. The page was move protected last December. Need to ask an admin to do it. Eubulides (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then how come I don't see any move protection at the top of the article (damnit, I'm incompetent). I'll ping DGG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- PS: <tap, tap, tap> ... RFA, Eubulides ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then how come I don't see any move protection at the top of the article (damnit, I'm incompetent). I'll ping DGG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not your browser. The page was move protected last December. Need to ask an admin to do it. Eubulides (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- What new title do you have in mind? I can quickly take care of it. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Julian; it's in the AFD; can't remember right now, and my computer SUCKS SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here it is: Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done –Juliancolton | Talk 18:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can we take up a collection to get SG a decent computer? That'd improve Wikipedia a lot more than buying 0.25 more edge servers. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- <sigh>. Allright, here's the story. I got a new laptop for Christmas 2007; it's not that old :) But, I didn't have any input into choosing the computer, and decided that returning it wouldn't be worth the agida (having once returned a crass piece of jewelry). My laptop has the now infamous Windows Vista, a complete piece of junk which I have been fighting against for several years. Now, I'm in a holding pattern, as Windows 7 was just released. On the many occasions when I want to throw this hunk of junk off of my back deck, I resort to getting out my old dinosaur, which still works better ! Anyway, I hope an upgrade to Windows 7 (soon) will solve my problems. Then, I will also install a new browser, but there's no sense in doing it now, since I'm waiting for a new Operating System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck with Windows 7; it can't be any worse than Vista, can it? Anyway, I was also given a laptop with Windows on it. I installed Ubuntu and it works much better for working on Wikipedia. Even if you need to use Windows for some other reason, it's easy to install a Linux distribution in a dual-boot setup and run Windows only when you need to. I boot Windows on my laptop when I need it, maybe once every six months or so now. I don't recommend Ubuntu for the very latest-and-greatest laptops (due to graphics and networking driver issues), but for older laptops it works better than Windows. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Julian and Eubulides. Anything they come up with could be junk; I know because I know one of the developers of IE <grrrr ... > I'm not going to make any changes just yet, lest I be put over the edge when I'm really busy. (When will I not be busy?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A bit anecdotal, but this BBC article goes through the routine and suggests a clean install may be safer. Sounds like they've got that a bit better organised than I feared, but it still involves reinstalling all old apps even if the passwords are saved. Either way, it could involve being out of action for hours, and if you're like me I can't even be bothered with switching off or restarting the computer for the usual updates so tend to put them off, let alone getting snow leopard. All in due time, but some things to do first! . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dave. I know I need a clean install, and I will have it done by a hired gun (that's why I've resurrected my old dinosaur, and I promote on my desktop). It's even worse here: flippin' Fujitsu has some compatibiity problem that won't let me install Windows updates (sends me into chkdsk); flippin' Live One Care (which I also didn't choose) blocks everything I try to do; and something on this damn computer causes it to jump around when I'm trying to type, moving my cursor to different parts of the text (for instance, it just wiped out your sig, and I had to fix it). I need a brand new install. It stinks. And, to make matters worse when I travel (often), the darn laptop is huge, but I can't complain, because at least there was some thought put into the fact that I need a larger monitor because of my eyesight. I go through torture just to post to Wiki, and then someone mentions my edit count at arbcom :))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A bit anecdotal, but this BBC article goes through the routine and suggests a clean install may be safer. Sounds like they've got that a bit better organised than I feared, but it still involves reinstalling all old apps even if the passwords are saved. Either way, it could involve being out of action for hours, and if you're like me I can't even be bothered with switching off or restarting the computer for the usual updates so tend to put them off, let alone getting snow leopard. All in due time, but some things to do first! . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Julian and Eubulides. Anything they come up with could be junk; I know because I know one of the developers of IE <grrrr ... > I'm not going to make any changes just yet, lest I be put over the edge when I'm really busy. (When will I not be busy?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck with Windows 7; it can't be any worse than Vista, can it? Anyway, I was also given a laptop with Windows on it. I installed Ubuntu and it works much better for working on Wikipedia. Even if you need to use Windows for some other reason, it's easy to install a Linux distribution in a dual-boot setup and run Windows only when you need to. I boot Windows on my laptop when I need it, maybe once every six months or so now. I don't recommend Ubuntu for the very latest-and-greatest laptops (due to graphics and networking driver issues), but for older laptops it works better than Windows. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- <sigh>. Allright, here's the story. I got a new laptop for Christmas 2007; it's not that old :) But, I didn't have any input into choosing the computer, and decided that returning it wouldn't be worth the agida (having once returned a crass piece of jewelry). My laptop has the now infamous Windows Vista, a complete piece of junk which I have been fighting against for several years. Now, I'm in a holding pattern, as Windows 7 was just released. On the many occasions when I want to throw this hunk of junk off of my back deck, I resort to getting out my old dinosaur, which still works better ! Anyway, I hope an upgrade to Windows 7 (soon) will solve my problems. Then, I will also install a new browser, but there's no sense in doing it now, since I'm waiting for a new Operating System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can we take up a collection to get SG a decent computer? That'd improve Wikipedia a lot more than buying 0.25 more edge servers. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done –Juliancolton | Talk 18:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here it is: Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Julian; it's in the AFD; can't remember right now, and my computer SUCKS SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi, thanks for your efforts to improve Ali.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Inner German border
I've summarised and spun out the Inner German border article as you suggested. Please take a look at the results (summarised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1#Article size update) and let me know whether you think this is sufficient. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Request For Mediation
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Vaccine_controversy has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vaccine_controversy and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Thank you, Sebastian Garth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC).
- Can I ask you add Generation Rescue to your watchlist, please? If it's not already there. It's starting to look like I'm owning the article, and the truth is I really don't know much of anything about vaccines ... I'm just trying to keep referenced material from being deleted and unrefrenced material from being added. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
MilHist alt texts
I've been reviewing a few Class-A nominations. I guess we should start insisting on alt text ... no one will object, I presume? Tony (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I won't. Eubulides (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- A concern only a grammar-nerd like me would think of: I'm finding a lot of alt texts cast as nominal groups alone, using "-ing. Here's an example:
Two people standing either side of a lowered border pole on a dirt road with a sign in the foreground.
IMO, it's more vivid to use a real, straight verb; for example:
Two people stand either side of a lowered border pole on a dirt road with a sign in the foreground.
I've always thought of present continuous tense as being more vivid, but it doesn't work as well in this context, when you're trying to make it easy for someone to conjure up the image in their mind's eye. It's almost worth making a "please consider" point in the MoS about it. Your thoughts? Tony (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I normally prefer present tense. There's a reasonable argument for the "-ing" but I still prefer the present tense here. I deliberately didn't cover this in WP:ALT because I thought it was too long anyway. It'd be fine with me to mention it in the MoS. It strikes me that the advice (whatever it is) should apply equally well to captions. Eubulides (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
George Vernon Hudson - Images on left or right?
Hello. Rule #1 of MOS:IMAGES#Images states: "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox" and the article doesn't appear long enough for right/left staggering of images. Upon re-thinking, I would do the same thing. I won't though. I doubt I'll visit that page again any time soon. I was just reading about DST this morning and found the left-aligned images in the lede very odd and distracting so I switched it. If you feel strongly about it, feel free to revert, but I actually can't think of any other articles that lead with left-aligned images. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Big favor please
Eubulides, if I may trouble you for a big favor, could you please add alt-text to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 28, 2009? I haven't developed the ability to write those thingies :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you; you're a dear. I added it to the blurb page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- In case you want to have a look: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 29, 2009 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Question
What would you use as alt text for an image/animation like this one?. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Daylight saving time article
Hi. You removed my links to Google Books for two references in the Daylight saving time article, saying the ISBN will get someone to the Google Books entry. Fair enough. But it's not precise and doesn't get you to the beginning of the book sometimes. To wit: http://books.google.com/books?id=rC6sAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover in the article goes to p.198 or so. Well, thanks for the update. Best wishes. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Google Books URLs are not reliable. For example, the URL you gave me did not send me to page 198; it sent me to the front cover. Many times, Google Books URLs send me to a blank screen, or a screen saying that I'm over limit. There are also some privacy concerns in their use. I don't recommend their use in Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not intend to send you to p.198, I intended to send you to the front cover, which the ISBN link doesn't do. I've never had any trouble with Google Books and they're useful to get an idea of the book's content. Usually if you see blank pages at the front of the Google book, it's part of the digital scanning process and the real pages simply follow. I understand your point on this although we disagree. Best wishes. -- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. Although that particular URL does work for me now, our experiences with Google Books differ greatly. My problems aren't the blank pages often at the start of books; they are that I can't read the books at all, or can read only the title page, or something like that. I am often on a shared IP network and get back messages saying "quota exceeded" from Google. See, for example, Talk:Jackie Robinson #Google Books URLs. Other times I get back blank pages that are clearly not blank in the original, with no diagnostic whatsoever. Also, I suspect due to licensing reasons, Google Books URLs often work in some locations but not others, e.g., in the U.S. but not in the UK. See, for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Disasters of War/archive1. I can't recommend them. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your kind reply. I see your points. I've never had a problem with Google Books except once where the wrong book was pointed at. It's something I'll have to look into. Still, I think they're useful as an entree into a work. And, after all, Eubulides may have invented many paradoxes and criticized Aristotle. ;) Many thanks and best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Lower case
Thank you for enforcing the consensus. You are precisely the type of non-involved editor who should be doing that. And what about the consensus that this is not worth an edit? It is very hypocrite, to pick from consensus just those parts that you like, and ignore those that you don't. Well, people are know by their deeds. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)